How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[AltF4]

No, I'm using logic.

But I do detect a less than subtle bit of angst against what you perceive to be "science". Why do you assume that it "assumes god is non-existent"? Because that is certainly an untrue statement.

You see, things like that really bother me. Why do christians feel threatened by "science" somehow? Why do they act as if the two are mutually exclusive?

Spoiler

Why do I ask questions I know the answer to, but want to see what you will say.

 

[blue_dragon]

If science didn't assume God was nonexistant, then God could be used as an answer for any questions whose answers are beyond are reach at the time.
How do you believe that Christians feel threatened by science anyway?

I do find it funny that no one started questioning this until after I expressed my opinions on the uselessness of it all.

 

[AltF4]

Ahh, I think I see your misconception. Science does not "assume god to be non-existent". It "does not assume got be be existent". These two concepts are not at all the same.

 

[blue_dragon]

Ahh, I think I see your misconception. Science does not "assume god to be non-existent". It "does not assume got be be existent". These two concepts are not at all the same.

I see what you mean. This is a great breakthrough. I will now ignore all posts about the trouble post until it's deleted.

I am honestly interested though, how does omniscience violate quantum mechanics?

 

[RDK]

If science didn't assume God was nonexistant, then God could be used as an answer for any questions whose answers are beyond are reach at the time.

God shouldn't be used as a default throwback to explain things that we don't understand yet.

That's like saying "we don't know how life was created, so I guess we automatically attribute it to invisible, intangible dinosaurs that roam the universe enforcing gravity". Which they do, BTW.

 

[Digital Watches]

God shouldn't be used as a default throwback to explain things that we don't understand yet.

That's like saying "we don't know how life was created, so I guess we automatically attribute it to invisible, intangible dinosaurs that roam the universe enforcing gravity". Which they do, BTW.

YES! MY CHURCH IS GAINING MOMENTUM!

 

[Deleted member]

God shouldn't be used as a default throwback to explain things that we don't understand yet.

That's like saying "we don't know how life was created, so I guess we automatically attribute it to invisible, intangible dinosaurs that roam the universe enforcing gravity". Which they do, BTW.

Don't call theism a cop-out. It is simply one way of looking at it.

 

[RDK]

Don't call theism a cop-out. It is simply one way of looking at it.

I'm not calling it a cop-out; I'm merely saying that we shouldn't run to one way of thinking just because we don't understand how something in our universe works.

 

[Quicksand]

God shouldn't be used as a default throwback to explain things that we don't understand yet.

That's like saying "we don't know how life was created, so I guess we automatically attribute it to invisible, intangible dinosaurs that roam the universe enforcing gravity". Which they do, BTW.

I think the whole point is that God is no longer the default throwback. We aren't in the dark ages anymore, where they had absolutely no idea how things worked. We have a very very good understanding of the way things work on the biochemical and molecular scale - because of this we see evidence of design, after design, after design, after design.

Each part works in unison with the other to accomplish something. The arrangement of parts to serve a purpose is what we see in everything, from the ecosystem, to cosmic-fine tuning, to blood clotting, to the arrangement of protons and neutrons - all of it is fastidious and tidy. Of all the other forms matter could have existed in, I wonder how it was possible for it to turn into what we have now? In my opinion, it's just not logical to accept the system we live in without accepting a designer.

 

[cF=)]

blablabla it just is not logical to accept the system we live in without accepting a designer.

It's not because I said so. Wrong!

 

[Quicksand]

It's not because I said so. Wrong!

Nice cop out.

 

[cF=)]

Nice cop out.

What you said is irrelevant because of these words. Live happily knowing your imagination is greater than mine though, I give you that.

 

[Quicksand]

What you said is irrelevant because of these words. Live happily knowing your imagination is greater than mine though, I give you that.

Translation: I'm not emotionally prepared for a response and it would be too mentally draining to go up against an argument with any bearing.

 

[cF=)]

go up against an argument with any bearing.

Wait, what argument? If you're insinuating intelligent design to be a valuable answer to the universe's complexity, bring me evidences and we shall discuss. Right now, I am left with absolutely nothing to criticize since you pulled everything right out of your head.

Incredible claims require incredible evidences.

 

[Quicksand]

Wait, what argument? If you're insinuating intelligent design to be a valuable answer to the universe's complexity, bring me evidences and we shall discuss. Right now, I am left with absolutely nothing to criticize since you pulled everything right out of your head.

Incredible claims require incredible evidences.

Evidence for intelligent design is in every thing you see around us. Since everything appears to have been designed, even Richard Dawkins admits that "all living things have the appearance of design".

Since there is no evidence of what could cause the big bang, or if life could come from non-life. I would say that atheists are the ones that need to show evidence for their incredible claim, especially since there is no empirical evidence backing up that what we see today could come about from Point A, let alone specifying and showing evidence for what Point A even is.

 

[cF=)]

I find this to be an interesting read about your question: how could life come from non-life?

-- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-08/997360144.Ev.r.html

Afterwards, apply Darwin's theory and fundamental evolutionary processes.

 

[AltF4]

I see what you mean. This is a great breakthrough. I will now ignore all posts about the trouble post until it's deleted.

I am honestly interested though, how does omniscience violate quantum mechanics?

Omniscience means to know everything.

Quantum Mechanics: It is impossible to know both the position and velocity of any particle at the same time.

Mutually exclusive.


Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. IE: all-powerful.

All of science: Locality and thus causality is broken.


Mutually exclusive.

 

[Miharu]

Evidence for intelligent design is in every thing you see around us. Since everything appears to have been designed, even Richard Dawkins admits that "all living things have the appearance of design".

That.

Is.

Not.

Evidence.

Appearances are rather deceiving at times, are they not?

Since there is no evidence of what could cause the big bang, or if life could come from non-life. I would say that atheists are the ones that need to show evidence for their incredible claim, especially since there is no empirical evidence backing up that what we see today could come about from Point A, let alone specifying and showing evidence for what Point A even is.

This has been refuted multiple times already.

 

[blue_dragon]

Omniscience means to know everything.

Quantum Mechanics: It is impossible to know both the position and velocity of any particle at the same time.

Mutually exclusive.


Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. IE: all-powerful.

All of science: Locality and thus causality is broken.


Mutually exclusive.

****, how did I forget Heisenburg? lol

But locality? One must assume that God is not local for that.

 

[Quicksand]

I find this to be an interesting read about your question: how could life come from non-life?

-- http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-08/997360144.Ev.r.html

Afterwards, apply Darwin's theory and fundamental evolutionary processes.

Wow, scientists all over the world should take a look at that, since the difficulty of abiogenesis has been solved, in just a few paragraphs no less!

Oh wait.

The fact of the matter is, no scientist has ANY IDEA WHATSOEVER as to how life actually came about. If they did, the would've replicated it in a lab already. I mean, they can't even make the simplest lifeform possible under whatever conditions, using whatever combination of chemicals. Hell, they can't even start half way up the ladder and do it, let alone start from some mixture of gases that may or may not have existed on a primordial earth. This all ignoring that there isn't any evidence that a single cell could eventually turn evolve into a precambrian creature, let alone the complexity and diversity we see in all life today.

The funny thing about that link was that even though Ms. Nicole Zellner (who holds the lofty and prestigious title of grad student) proclaims that:

"Experiments have revealed that certain type of naturally occurring RNA (ribozymes) could act as their own enzymes, snipping themselves into two and splicing themselves back together again."

It begs the question; how exactly does this RNA come about from those amino acids? Do they all get together at a party and hook up? This is ignoring the fact that chemical reactions in the hypothesized prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication. Oh yeah, I also forgot that In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose which is essential for RNA and DNA to even exist. Pyrimidine nucleosides don't form under supposed prebiotic conditions. And even if scientists were able to find a method for pyrimidine nucleosides, that same combination of nucleosides with phosphate under the same prebiotic conditions makes not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA replication, let alone polymerization.

Looks like it's back to those undersea geothermal vents.

This has been refuted multiple times already.

O rly? Article please?

 

[Digital Watches]

Um... Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

In case you haven't, it's a logical principle that proposes that a theory relying on hypothetical entities is less viable than one that doesn't, given no evidence to substantiate either. Your claim is flimsy because it not only does this, but, (say it with me now) it assumes its conclusions in its reasoning. You claim that because complexity necessarily implies design, there must be a designer, but there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE that complexity implies design. You can't just declare something to be some kind of axiom and expect it to back up your claim. Many may play that game with you, but no one intelligent will.

That, and your attempt to use scientific knowledge to prove God is flawed from the beginning, as the idea that science has to explain why things happen (instead of just describe them) is about two hundred years outdated (See some of the crazy **** that came before gravity was explained by Newton).

Besides, you've yet to explain why your god is any better than my dinosaurs.

 

[Quicksand]

Um... Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

In case you haven't, it's a logical principle that proposes that a theory relying on hypothetical entities is less viable than one that doesn't, given no evidence to substantiate either. Your claim is flimsy because it not only does this, but, (say it with me now) it assumes its conclusions in its reasoning. You claim that because complexity necessarily implies design, there must be a designer, but there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE that complexity implies design. You can't just declare something to be some kind of axiom and expect it to back up your claim. Many may play that game with you, but no one intelligent will.

That, and your attempt to use scientific knowledge to prove God is flawed from the beginning, as the idea that science has to explain why things happen (instead of just describe them) is about two hundred years outdated (See some of the crazy **** that came before gravity was explained by Newton).

Besides, you've yet to explain why your god is any better than my dinosaurs.

The explanation by which atheists adhere to actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If you calculated the number of universes required, as the great Stephen Hawking did, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 10^10000. The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an eternal intelligent being is obviously a much simpler explanation.

Now the question becomes how you will define Occam's Razor. Since you can't mathmatically estimate the existence of God or show his complexity, the question now becomes what category will you place him in?

Take this paragraph from Al Plantinga destroying Dawkins book The God Delusion: "Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

Read that link if you would, it makes some very valid points on the existence of God coming from a real philosopher and not your average run of the mill nut job Christian who figured out post stuff on the internet.

 

[Digital Watches]

The explanation by which atheists adhere to actually goes against Occam's razor since it requires some mechanism by which universes can sprout from some super universe and randomly change their laws of physics. If you calculated the number of universes required, as the great Stephen Hawking did, by chance, to have the exact physics required for the formation of galaxies, stars and planets, it would exceed 10^10000. The mechanism by which physical laws could randomly evolve would add further complexity. Design by an eternal intelligent being is obviously a much simpler explanation.

This argument is extremely tired. Frankly, there's no way you can know that universal constants aren't just that. You work from the assumption that laws of physics need necessarily come into being with the universe. If you assume that there must needs be some finite point in time at which the universe sprang into being, how are you to know that the same constants didn't apply in whatever ante-universe reality you claim to have existed?

Now the question becomes how you will define Occam's Razor. Since you can't mathmatically estimate the existence of God or show his complexity, the question now becomes what category will you place him in?

That's easy. "God" is a hypothetical entity, since you don't really have any means by which you can substantiate claims that he exists, childish mental masturbation aside. Speaking of which:

Take this paragraph from Al Plantinga destroying Dawkins book The God Delusion: "Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity."

So you're claiming (Or I suppose I should say that you're agreeing with a previous claim, to give "credit" where it's due) that because tractors are designed, that everything must be? In other words, because the abstract concept of things being designed by other things is indeed possible and happens frequently, you claim that everything must have been designed? That's patently absurd, and while I shouldn't have to explain why, I suppose this case warrants doing so as a precaution.

The assumption that tractors, tools made for a specific purpose and presumably recognized as such because they had been seen before by the observer, are designed for said purpose by beings who used a similar (or the same) method to solve the same problem is of course very reasonable. Presumably, in your analogy, these tractors are similar enough to ones we've seen before to consider them the same thing. We can observe and demonstrate tractors being designed. We could go to a tractor manufacturing plant and see them being built. We could call a friend in the R&D department and ask to see the designs for them. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's a precedent. We have built them from raw materials, and if we were to inspect the alien tractors, we could probably reverse engineer and reproduce them. I don't see how this applies to life, or the universe as a whole.

Also, I'm still waiting on your logical proof that invisible dinosaurs don't control gravity.

 

[AltF4]

Design by an eternal intelligent being is obviously a much simpler explanation.

No it's not. God is an easier concept to explain to a complete idiot in 10 words or less, but that does not make it a "simpler theory" in the manner Occam's Razor necessitates.

Just because you don't understand a theory or because you find it complicated doesn't mean Occam's Razor must mean it's false. The Razor is an underlying principle, not a law. We should try to minimize complexity where possible.


Furthermore, that paragraph (more like wall-o-text) supposedly "basing" Dawkins hardly actually says anything. The guy is essentially saying that he's not trying to use god explain complex life in general with god, but rather just Earth's life.

...okay...

That still leaves you with no credible reason to "invoke" (what a cop-out way of saying "assume") god as a creator. There is still no evidence.

And EVEN furthermore, that guy's entire hypothetical is carefully crafted to mislead you into an incorrect assumption. You arrive in an alien planet and find tractor-like robots. It is then a reasonable assumption to suppose that the tractors were created by something else. Yes

But why?

Because we know one example exists already that creates tractor like objects. Us.

But when we observe complex life on Earth, the writer would like you to extend this supposition to the existence of god, but this is absolutely erroneous.
The concept of god is not a "manifestation of organized complexity", it is not a manifestation of anything. It is still begging the question to say that "god exists because life exists on earth and thus it must have had a creator".

 

[Digital Watches]

Think I beat you to the punch there.

 

[AltF4]

I was totally in the process of writing before you. I'm just a slow typer.

 

[blue_dragon]

As for the Dinosaurs, the most logical proof I can think of is that... Ah, I've got it now. The reason why God/Dinosaurs can't be proved/disproved is because their properties are defined by the individual. As this is true, then I do agree that God should be kept out of science for now.

 

[Quicksand]

This argument is extremely tired. Frankly, there's no way you can know that universal constants aren't just that. You work from the assumption that laws of physics need necessarily come into being with the universe. If you assume that there must needs be some finite point in time at which the universe sprang into being, how are you to know that the same constants didn't apply in whatever ante-universe reality you claim to have existed?

I guess you should take it up with Mr. Hawking that his calculations are wrong.

So you're claiming (Or I suppose I should say that you're agreeing with a previous claim, to give "credit" where it's due) that because tractors are designed, that everything must be? In other words, because the abstract concept of things being designed by other things is indeed possible and happens frequently, you claim that everything must have been designed? That's patently absurd, and while I shouldn't have to explain why, I suppose this case warrants doing so as a precaution.

The assumption that tractors, tools made for a specific purpose and presumably recognized as such because they had been seen before by the observer, are designed for said purpose by beings who used a similar (or the same) method to solve the same problem is of course very reasonable. Presumably, in your analogy, these tractors are similar enough to ones we've seen before to consider them the same thing. We can observe and demonstrate tractors being designed. We could go to a tractor manufacturing plant and see them being built. We could call a friend in the R&D department and ask to see the designs for them. Do you see where I'm going with this? It's a precedent. We have built them from raw materials, and if we were to inspect the alien tractors, we could probably reverse engineer and reproduce them. I don't see how this applies to life, or the universe as a whole.

Yes but the point is that if you were to see tractors on another planet (or maybe a rock formation in a near perfect sphere) you would know that it was designed. Machines or sculptures are built with a purpose in mind, and that purpose is observable.

Also, I'm still waiting on your logical proof that invisible dinosaurs don't control gravity.

It doesn't matter who controls gravity, I see the effects of it so I know that even if the explanation of gravity isn't quite correct, I know that something of the sort of "gravity" is turned on. Similarly, I see the effects of a designer, I don't care if we came from Xenu's spaceship or if it was God - design is prevalent and despite what you would have me believe, there isn't any empirical evidence showing that evolution can actually account for the diversity of life, let alone individual complex functions.

But when we observe complex life on Earth, the writer would like you to extend this supposition to the existence of god, but this is absolutely erroneous.
The concept of god is not a "manifestation of organized complexity", it is not a manifestation of anything. It is still begging the question to say that "god exists because life exists on earth and thus it must have had a creator".

Exactly? God just is. The universe is not. God is non-spatial and eternal, the universe is not - we can't account for the "being" of the laws of physics just because.

 

[AltF4]

Yes, we can in fact. God ****, Quicksand. Seriously.

You know, we are not the first people to ever debate religion. People have been doing it for a long time. There are many well known arguments on both side, and many well known refutations of those arguments.

You have yet to produce anything that isn't an argument well known to be fallacious. Just do a bit of googling, go on to freaking Wikipedia, something.

 

[Quicksand]

Yes, we can in fact. God ****, Quicksand. Seriously.

You know, we are not the first people to ever debate religion. People have been doing it for a long time. There are many well known arguments on both side, and many well known refutations of those arguments.

And refutations of those refutations. You know, we aren't debating religion right now, just the existence of God. Oh by the way, even though you think an argument is fallacious, doesn't mean it is, so go ahead and refute it.

There is a reason there aren't %100 atheist or %100 christians, one of us has got to be wrong.

 

[cF=)]

Vitalism, hide into it and stop posting.

You appeal to false probability (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule), you place observation higher than any concrete arguments (may I remind you the Sun's movement and the flat-looking Earth you walk on?) and you go has far as bringing chemistry lies to this board. Thermodynamics would like to have a word with you about naturally occurring processes, something you might not be familiar with.

 

[Quicksand]

Vitalism, hide into it and stop posting.

You appeal to false probability (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule), you place observation higher than any concrete arguments (may I remind you the Sun's movement and the flat-looking Earth you walk on?) and you go has far as bringing chemistry lies to this board. Thermodynamics would like to have a word with you about naturally occurring processes, something you might not be familiar with.

That link has nothing to do with the objections I just raised. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat flows from hot bodies to cold bodies. This law also affects the formation of enantiomers in chemical reactions capable of producing stereoisomers. Since the formation of both left and right-handed enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts. Any deviation from this result is highly unlikely (much less likely than the scenario of starting your car on a hot California day and having freeze over while running). -Rich Deem

Check out what atheist Leslie Orgel has to say about the problems facing abiogenesis: http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.html

 

[cF=)]

That link has nothing to do with the objections I just raised.

Yes, it completely does. You're the one stating basic molecular life is a lie.

Since the formation of both left and right-handed enantiomers requires the exact same amount of energy, both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Tell me this is a joke, because you don't seem to consider steric obstruction. See? You're spreading lies. I'm done with you.

 

[Quicksand]

Yes, it completely does. You're the one stating basic molecular life as a lie.

I never did. Also, I edited and updated my previous post.

That link doesn't say anything about how DNA comes about, just how it's fallacious to use probabilities in reference to it's appearance.

"Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 10^24 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 10^27 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks."

Huh. I wonder why they haven't dumped a bunch of nucleotides in a lake and struck it over and over with electricity to produce life? Especially since the origins are life are arguably the most important topic facing mankind, you would think they would have hundreds of thousands of these lakes set up all with different sorts of conditions because maybe, JUST MAYBE, they could produce some self replicating RNA which then some how turns into DNA which then some how turns into a cell.

Tell me this is a joke, because you don't seem to consider steric obstruction. See? You're spreading lies. I'm done with you.

Explain. We're talking about assumed principles or starting bases remember? Obviously if I'm misinformed then I'm not lying. I think it is hilarious how you are passing this off as undeniable fact, you would think with all this information you're giving me, scientists would have figured it out by now, but guess what: they have no clue.

 

[Quicksand]

EDIT: accidently double posted

 

[cF=)]

they have no clue.

No, you have no clue.

Here's the book I came back with which has a complete chapter about organic isomery:

- HUOT Richard, ROY Gérard-Yvon, Chimie organique; notions fondamentales, 4e édition 2004

On page 478, you can read the following:

"On observe environ 37% de la forme α, 63% de la forme β et à peine 0,003% de la forme ouverte.

La prédominance de la forme β s'explique par la position du OH sur le carbone anomère C1. Ce OH est en position équatoriale, donc dans une situation favorable à un encombrement stérique minimum. Pour l'isomère α, le OH en C1 est axial"

Translate this by yourself. It's right in your face.

 

[Quicksand]

No, you have no clue.

Here's the book I came back with which has a complete chapter about organic isomery:

- HUOT Richard, ROY Gérard-Yvon, Chimie organique; notions fondamentales, 4e édition 2004

On page 478, you can read the following:

"On observe environ 37% de la forme α, 63% de la forme β et à peine 0,003% de la forme ouverte.

La prédominance de la forme β s'explique par la position du OH sur le carbone anomère C1. Ce OH est en position équatoriale, donc dans une situation favorable à un encombrement stérique minimum. Pour l'isomère α, le OH en C1 est axial"

Translate this by yourself. It's right in your face.

What? Seems like everything I've said so far you've responded to with a completely unrelated post. And you've yet to object to the assertions I've made.

 

[Miharu]

What? Seems like everything I've said so far you've responded to with a completely unrelated post. And you've yet to object to the assertions I've made.

Pretty sure that his post is relevant.

If you'd translate it, you'd figure out why.

 

[blue_dragon]

No, you have no clue.

Here's the book I came back with which has a complete chapter about organic isomery:

- HUOT Richard, ROY Gérard-Yvon, Chimie organique; notions fondamentales, 4e édition 2004

On page 478, you can read the following:

"On observe environ 37% de la forme α, 63% de la forme β et à peine 0,003% de la forme ouverte.

La prédominance de la forme β s'explique par la position du OH sur le carbone anomère C1. Ce OH est en position équatoriale, donc dans une situation favorable à un encombrement stérique minimum. Pour l'isomère α, le OH en C1 est axial"

Translate this by yourself. It's right in your face.

What does this have to do with anything? It's an observance about two forms. One's equatorial, and the other's axial. The only part relating to you previous post is the brief mention of sterics. What is that supposed to prove? That Identical reactants can react in different ways? It basically sounds like the beginning of an AP Chem. question.

 

[cF=)]

Look at the freaking numbers, one form doesn't show up in a perfect ratio with the others. Quicksand mentionned earlier, and I quote:

both enantiomers are produced in identical amounts.

... which is false, because according to steric obstruction and the position of chiral carbon atoms in the molecule, you won't necessarily get an identical amount of all the possibilities. There you have it, this is what I answered to.

What does this have to do with anything? It's an observance about two forms. One's equatorial, and the other's axial. The only part relating to you previous post is the brief mention of sterics. What is that supposed to prove? That Identical reactants can react in different ways? It basically sounds like the beginning of an AP Chem. question.

You are ******** illiterate, I give you that.