A case for religion, and against AA.

[Cerpin Taxt]

Expected by whom?

You're the one that said that the conditions were not an aberration. Answer your own question. Better yet, answer the questions in my earlier post #324.

We weren't always here.

I thought we were talking about the "conditions for life." Now you're talking about humans. It seems you're moving the goalposts.

If you cannot explain why these conditions are the way they are, just say so and stop trying to avoid this obvious question.

Why do they need an explanation if they aren't an aberration? Maybe they were always this way.

That's the issue with your "logic"...it doesn't explain anything -- it only reaffirms our existence.

I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about the "conditions for life" -- your term and the subject of your claim.

A 2 year-old can reaffirm the existence of something.

So what?

Coins are still flipped by someone or some thing. You cannot escape that simple truth.

Nice job spectacularly missing the point again.

Marvelous. Who said it was?

I did. The fact that it isn't is why we don't suppose a "higher-intelligence" is responsible for it.

Who's trying to invoke a higher intelligence to explain the Sun coming up?

Nobody. Nobody does because it isn't an aberration. We don't invoke a "higher-intelligence" for things that are mundane. That's the point, although it appears to elude you.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're the one that said that the conditions were not an aberration.

Yes, meaning they didn't just fall into place is how I was using the word because a common word thrown around in science is "lucky" when it comes to our specific place and specific conditions in our Solar system.

I thought we were talking about the "conditions for life." Now you're talking about humans. It seems you're moving the goalposts.

Humans are a result of these conditions by extension, and we "expect" things.

So again, these conditions were expected by whom?

Why do they need an explanation if they aren't an aberration? Maybe they were always this way.

Maybe they weren't always this way.

These conditions and by extension, living things that are primed to survive points to extreme intelligence.

There is simply no better explanation. This is the simplest, and best explanation.

I'm not talking about us. I'm talking about the "conditions for life" -- your term and the subject of your claim.

Fine, You're not explanation anything, only reaffirming that these conditions exists. I can see that myself.

I did. The fact that it isn't is why we don't suppose a "higher-intelligence" is responsible for it.

What part of "God Created a self-sustaining Universe" is hard for you to grasp?

This is precisely why I posted my watchmaker analogy -- it operates on its own, automatically, but that doesn't mean no one invented it.

Nobody

. Nobody does because it isn't an aberration. We don't invoke a "higher-intelligence" for things that are mundane. That's the point, although it appears to elude you.

The existence of our Universe is "mundane"?

 

[Retro Rob]

Show me how "these conditions are to be expected" follows logically from that premise.

Easy. These conditions reflect intelligence, and purpose. We orbit the Sun at the right distance from our star, and are protected from it by the Atmosphere and Core, have the right size to keep light gases and surface water for escaping.

We're in the "goldilocks zone". It reflect intelligence, and purpose. Only someone with more wisdom and power then we have can achieve such an incredible goal.

Why not some other conditions? Why these conditions in particular?

Why should there be some other conditions?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yes, meaning they didn't just fall into place is how I was using the word because a common word thrown around in science is "lucky" when it comes to our specific place and specific conditions in our Solar system.

Tell me what "God magically hocus-pocused the universe into existence" explains that "it just fell into place" does not.

Humans are a result of these conditions by extension, and we "expect" things.

So what? Humans have nothing to do with the matter at hand. We're talking about the conditions. The conditions were the subject of your claims. Humans are not the conditions. Humans are a red herring.

So again, these conditions were expected by whom?

Why are you asking me? It was you that claimed that they weren't an "aberration."

Maybe they weren't always this way.

Ok great. Show me that they weren't.

These conditions and by extension, living things that are primed to survive points to extreme intelligence.

This is your baseless claim.

There is simply no better explanation. This is the simplest, and best explanation.

Why do they need an explanation? They aren't an aberration, according to you.

Fine, You're not explanation anything, only reaffirming that these conditions exists. I can see that myself.

You haven't shown that the conditions require explanation. Explanations describe why things are one certain way, and not any other way. Why aren't the conditions different, Rob? If you can't explain that, then you haven't explained anything.

What part of "God Created a self-sustaining Universe" is hard for you to grasp?

Pretty much the whole fucking thing. Let's see...

What is "God"? Demonstrate the existence of this "God."
What does it mean to say "God Created"? How does that work? How does that happen?
What is a "self-sustaining Universe"? In what way is the universe "sustained"?

You do know have the foggiest idea the answers to those questions, yet you'll happily go shooting off at the mouth like the words you say have any meaning whatosever.

This is precisely why I posted my watchmaker analogy -- it operates on its own, automatically, but that doesn't mean no one invented it.

The watch is an element of the universe, it isn't a universe unto itself, genius. We know it was invented because it is so easily distinguished from the environment in which it exists. It is so easily distinguished from other things in its environment because those other things do not appear to be invented.

The existence of our Universe is "mundane"?

Uh, yes. Obviously. Unless you the kind of person that wakes up every day and goes "HOLY SHIT! LOOK! THERE'S THE UNIVERSE! I NEVER EXPECTED THAT TO BE THERE!"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Easy.

This oughta be a hoot.

These conditions reflect intelligence, and purpose.

How?

We orbit the Sun at the right distance from our star, and are protected from it by the Atmosphere and Core, have the right size to keep light gases and surface water for escaping.

And the mud puddle examines the hole in which it lays, and thinks "Look at how perfectly this hole conforms to my shape! At every peak and valley it matches me in every perfect way! Surely this hole was designed just for me!"

Come on, Rob.

We're in the "goldilocks zone". It reflect intelligence, and purpose. Only someone with more wisdom and power then we have can achieve such an incredible goal.

This attempt was a spectacular failure. You're just arguing by assertion. Nothing you have said is based on anything but conjecture and outright nonsense.

Why should there be some other conditions?

If there shouldn't be any other conditions, then the conditions do not require explanation. They simply are the conditions. It is you that has implicitly suggested that they could be different by claiming that they require explanation.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is plenty of evidence. Shoe prints are evdience humans are/have been in the area, creation and the Universe points to a designer being there.

Simple logic and reality at work.

What "creation"?

More importantly, you should answer these questions: is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God? What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

Still waiting for you to defend your statement here, Rob.

 

[Retro Rob]

Tell me what "God magically hocus-pocused the universe into existence" explains that "it just fell into place" does not.

It explains why we're here, duh.

Ok great. Show me that they weren't.

I hope you know what I am referring to. The earth wasn't always here, and thus, the conditions simply didn't exist because the earth at one time, didn't exist. I wasn't talking about the Universe.

You haven't shown that the conditions require explanation.

Look at the other planets in our solar system -- they're uninhabited and uninhabitable. Why is that? As far as we know, the Universe is totally barren, aside from a little blue dot (earth).

That need to be explained.

Why aren't the conditions different, Rob? If you can't explain that, then you haven't explained anything.

The conditions aren't different because life wouldn't have thrived under them. We can see that much. These conditions support life, and why the are the way they are.

What is "God"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Demonstrate the existence of this "God."

In what way?

What does it mean to say "God Created"? How does that work? How does that happen?

I don't know how God created, and I don't need to know. I don't need to know how Chevy built my engine to know that they built it.

What is a "self-sustaining Universe"? In what way is the universe "sustained"?

This is my fault. I didn't mean "universe", I specifically wanted to say "earth".

I don't think I need to explain that to you.

The watch is an element of the universe, it isn't a universe unto itself, genius. We know it was invented because it is so easily distinguished from the environment in which it exists.

So does the earth. In a barren, hostile environment, the Earth stands out and is distinguished from any other planet we've seen because it harbors intelligent life, and appears as a blue "jewel" from space.

So it too was invented.

Thanks for helping my point with this post.

 

[Retro Rob]

What "creation"?

The planet, plant and animal life, and how "distinguishable they are from the environment in which they exists", as you so eloquently put it.

More importantly, you should answer these questions: is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God?

The Universe not existing.

What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

We simply wouldn't exists to examine it, or see what it "looks like". In other words, we exists because God exists.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It explains why we're here, duh.

How does it do that?

I hope you know what I am referring to.

I'm beginning to have doubts that you even know what you're referring to, with as much goalpost shifting that you're doing.

The earth wasn't always here, and thus, the conditions simply didn't exist because the earth at one time, didn't exist. I wasn't talking about the Universe.

You haven't ever mentioned the earth until now. You simply spoke of the "conditions for life," you stated that they weren't an aberration, and then you claimed that they may not have always been that way.

Maybe you should tell us what exactly are the "conditions for life." Please be thorough. That means you should also describe how you discovered that there are no other "conditions for life."

Look at the other planets in our solar system -- they're uninhabited and uninhabitable. Why is that?

Why should they be habitable?

As far as we know, the Universe is totally barren, aside from a little blue dot (earth).

That need to be explained.

Says you. Why shouldn't it be that way?

The conditions aren't different because life wouldn't have thrived under them.

You're aren't saying anything meaninguful. You're saying "The conditions for life aren't different because if they weren't the conditions for life, then we wouldn't have life." Well, no shit, Sherlock. That's only trivially true. It's a tautology, and it explains nothing.

"Squares have 4 interior right angles because if they didn't have 4 interior right angles, they wouldn't be squares." ~ Deep Thoughts, with Rob M.

We can see that much. These conditions support life, and why the are the way they are.

It confounds me that you can actually type that gibberish and have the gall to click the "Submit Reply" button like you think nobody will notice that its nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You misunderstood me, which I should've expected. Where is this idea instantiated in reality?

In what way?

That's your problem, not mine.

I don't know how God created, and I don't need to know.

If you want somebody else to believe that "God created" is a meaningful phrase, then yeah, you do.

I don't need to know how Chevy built my engine to know that they built it.

But that question is answerable. In what way is "how did God create" an answerable question?

This is my fault. I didn't mean "universe", I specifically wanted to say "earth".

I don't think I need to explain that to you.

Yeah, you do. In what way is the existence of the earth "sustained." What "sustains" it?

So does the earth. In a barren, hostile environment, the Earth stands out and is distinguished from any other planet we've seen because it harbors intelligent life, and appears as a blue "jewel" from space.

Apples and automobiles. There is nothing principally different about the formation of the earth and the formation of other planets. You yourself claimed that it wasn't an "aberration." Now it seems you're trying to suggest that it is an "aberration." Which is it?

So it too was invented.

But the other planets weren't?

Thanks for helping my point with this post.

How do you tell which planets were "invented" and which ones were not?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The planet, plant and animal life, and how "distinguishable they are from the environment in which they exists", as you so eloquently put it.

Just to be clear, we can tell that "the planet, plant and animal life" is a "creation" because the environment in which they exist does not appear to be a "creation"?

The Universe not existing.

I think I need to restate the question with some emphasis:

Is there anything in the universe that is not evidence of God?

Wanna take another stab at it?

We simply wouldn't exists to examine it, or see what it "looks like".

How do you suppose that answers my question? Here, I'll repeat it: What would evidence that God does not exist look like?

I'm not asking about what would be the case if we did not exist. We do exist. If there were evidence which we could observe that indicated a God did not exist, what would it look like? Got any idea, whatsoever?

In other words, we exists because God exists.

Yes, Rob, we know your beliefs. What we want is some reason to believe that your beliefs have any correlation to reality.

 

[sandorski]

Still, all we have is Goddidit, with no evidence offered of a gods existence. Science wants to Know things, not just have Answers to questions.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Still, all we have is Goddidit, with no evidence offered of a gods existence. Science wants to Know things, not just have Answers to questions.

Answers are easy. My pet cat can give answers (she purrs for "yes"). It's reliable and testable answers that are meaningful.

 

[dphantom]

Yes, Rob, we know your beliefs. What we want is some reason to believe that your beliefs have any correlation to reality.

God has given us reasons to believe. You want proof that requires no belief, no faith. God won't do that because He does not need to. We either accept Him or reject Him. The choice is completely ours to make.

 

[sandorski]

God has given us reasons to believe. You want proof that requires no belief, no faith. God won't do that because He does not need to. We either accept Him or reject Him. The choice is completely ours to make.

There's no Value in Belief or Faith.

 

[sao123]

There's no Value in Belief or Faith.

A naive opinion at best.


"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

 

[sandorski]

A naive opinion at best.


"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Speaking of naive....

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God has given us reasons to believe.

Ok. What are they?

You want proof that requires no belief, no faith.

Yes, that is what rational people do.

God won't do that because He does not need to.

If he wants to be known to exist, yes, he does.

We either accept Him or reject Him. The choice is completely ours to make.

I have rejected no god, ever. I cannot reject that which I do not believe to exist.

 

[dphantom]

I have rejected no god, ever. I cannot reject that which I do not believe to exist.

of course you just have. You do not believe. You cannot get past the idea that man is the not ultimate. You have no faith there is something greater than you

 

[sandorski]

of course you just have. You do not believe. You cannot get past the idea that man is the ultimate. You have no faith there is something greater than you

Let it show itself then.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

There's no Value in Belief or Faith.

Ephesians 2:8 ESV

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,


Colossians 3:12-14 ESV

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.



Acts 20:35 ESV

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

 

[dphantom]

Let it show itself then.

see post 345

 

[sandorski]

Ephesians 2:8 ESV

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,


Colossians 3:12-14 ESV

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.



Acts 20:35 ESV

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

see post 345

ok, now what?

 

[dphantom]

There's no Value in Belief or Faith.

you believe in nothing, have faith in nothing? How sad.

 

[sandorski]

you believe in nothing, have faith in nothing? How sad.

Why? Reality has more than enough to fill my life with anything I Need/Want. Fantasy not required.

 

[Retro Rob]

How does it do that?

Easy. We now have a reason to exists, and aren't just pond scum. If the Bible is true (which I believe to be so), then we have a purpose behind our existence.

I'm beginning to have doubts that you even know what you're referring to, with as much goalpost shifting that you're doing.

Like I indicated, I wasn't clear. So I am being clear. I am referring to Earth's conditions.

You haven't ever mentioned the earth until now. You simply spoke of the "conditions for life," you stated that they weren't an aberration, and then you claimed that they may not have always been that way.

I am speaking of the earth.

Maybe you should tell us what exactly are the "conditions for life." Please be thorough.

More semantics. Let me say this. Life, as we currently know it, requires certain conditions. Those conditions are more appreciated when we see how barren space is, or the parts we've studied so far.

That means you should also describe how you discovered that there are no other "conditions for life."

I look at other lifeless planets, and draw the logical conclusion that if Mars is dead, then conditions for intelligent life don't exists there.

Why should they be habitable?

Who said they should be? I said they aren't.

Says you. Why shouldn't it be that way?

It's unique, so an explanation is warranted.

That's your problem, not mine.

You want evidence, but don't know what evidence you want.

If you want somebody else to believe that "God created" is a meaningful phrase, then yeah, you do.

I don't know "how". Do you know exactly how Bill Gates built Microsoft? Of course you don't.

Yet, that doesn't effect your acceptance that he built the company.

But that question is answerable. In what way is "how did God create" an answerable question?

Are you saying that it is unanswerable? On what evidence are you basing this on?

Yeah, you do. In what way is the existence of the earth "sustained." What "sustains" it?

It reproduces vegetation, orbits the Sun, rains etc, without the need for human intervention...all on its own. You need this explained to you? You're in above your head.

Apples and automobiles. There is nothing principally different about the formation of the earth and the formation of other planets.

Exactly how did the planets form? And can you prove this?

But the other planets weren't?

Sure they were. But we're unique, and our planet designed for life...obviously.

How do you tell which planets were "invented" and which ones were not?

All planets were. However, we are a special invention indicated by how we're distinguished from other planets that inhabit our solar system, and so far, the Universe.