A case for religion, and against AA.

[PingviN]

You have evidence there is no life in the universe? Please share your findings with the world please. Im sorry for doubting you before, i was unaware you had travelled the whole universe.

Well we didn't find life on the moon. We didn't find life on Mars. No alien species have come to Earth and visited us. Clearly, space is dead.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You have evidence there is no life in the universe? <----I have the same evidence that you have that life does exist!!

Please share your findings with the world please. Im sorry for doubting you before, i was unaware you had travelled the whole universe.

That is not what I said...
I made the statement I for one am not willing to believe....

Now if somebody were to show me evidence that life did exist...I would most certainly would consider that evidence......

Even though IMO a case could still be made for one divine creator....

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Again, 'given enough time, anything can occur'. You cannot see why this is faith based. How many experiments verify this?

This is exactly the same as saying my phone will completely change to something other than what it is today if I give it millions of years.

Yet, that sounds silly, but it's exactly what you're saying.

May be I can sit a pile of bitumen on a potholed street for millions of years, and the holes will eventually be filled somehow without human intervention.

What's so hard to believe about your phone changing into something other than what it is if you give it a million years? The Colosseum is one of the grandest structures ever built; around 1,900 years of exposure to weather and natural disasters have left it looking like this:

That's less than 2,000 years of exposure. In 1,000,000 years, how much deterioration will have happened to that structure? And that's one of the largest buildings ever constructed; you're talking about an electronic device that fits in a pocket. Do you honestly believe that if you were able to leave a phone somewhere for 1,000,000 years, you could come back to it and it would be intact? Do you think it would even be remotely recognizable as a phone? The building you left it in probably wouldn't even exist by that point. Your phone may not turn into a bird and fly away, but it almost certainly will turn into dust through the process of erosion, and that's something other than what it is today. It takes far more faith to believe that something can be shielded from the process of time than changed by it.

I think the biggest issue that people face when confronted by the scales used in geologic time is the sheer size of the numbers is utterly incomprehensible in any conventional fashion. I mean, we understand what one billion years means, but we can't really conceive of what one billion years is. Our lifespans are around 70 years, maybe 80 if we're lucky, and most of us on this board are in our 20s and 30s. Comparing our concept of a year to a geologic time scale is completely useless. I can remember things that happened 25 years ago, but that doesn't make it easier to conceive of 25,000 years, let alone millions. I can use comparative periods to think about how far back it is to the time of Jesus, and then back that far again to the Ancient Egyptian Empire, but I have to make that same leap 48 more times to go back a million years. I have to imagine the entirety of the history that has happened between Jesus and now 32,500 times to get back to the time of the dinosaurs. And that's only going back 65,000,000 years on a planet that's 4,540,000,000 years old. It's completely inconceivable to picture that amount of time in any meaningful way.

So, basically, given enough time, a lot of things certainly can happen. Your phone surviving for a million years? That's just a marketing department blowing smoke.

 

[witeken]

Great comment, but I guess his point is that even after a million years, his phone won't change into something more exotic like a conscious phone or so.

 

[PingviN]

Great comment, but I guess his point is that even after a million years, his phone won't change into something more exotic like a conscious phone or so.

No, but that's because he is willfully ignorant about the process of evolution through natural selection.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That is not what I said...
I made the statement I for one am not willing to believe....

Now if somebody were to show me evidence that life did exist...I would most certainly would consider that evidence......

Even though IMO a case could still be made for one divine creator....

We know for a fact life exists; we're proof of it. So we can cross "proof of life" off the list and start addressing the probability of life on other planets. We know of 8 planets in our own solar system, and around 1,800 confirmed planets outside our solar system; so far we've only discovered life on one of these (Earth). NASA estimates that there are at least 100,000,000,000 planets in the Milky Way alone, and that is only one galaxy out of potentially 170,000,000,000. If we estimate that we are roughly average in the number of planets our galaxy contains, that gives us 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe at minimum. A more likely equation estimates trillions of planets in our own galaxy, so we'll tack an extra zero or two on to that absurdly long number of planets; for simplicity's sake, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It's one thing to be one in a billion or one in a trillion. But one in a septillion? That seems unlikely. Even if we assume that only one in every quadrillion planets will give rise to life, that's billions and billions of planets across the galaxy with life on them. The numbers are just so impossibly huge that it's difficult to comprehend that we'd be so lucky as to be the only planet to get life somehow.

Then again, we still don't have proof of any extraterrestrial life, so you can certainly just take those numbers as a sign that God loves us that much more than the other septillion planets he created, which is not necessarily a bad thought.

 

[Retro Rob]

Great comment, but I guess his point is that even after a million years, his phone won't change into something more exotic like a conscious phone or so.

This is my point exactly, and my comment had nothing to do with Evolution as per PingVin's post.

Of course erosion happens; that's pretty much common sense and I would think that I didn't have to explain that part to people here. I just figured that if you can go from simple to complex simply with the passage of time without any intelligent intervention, then any matter should do the same given the time and circumstances.

But I think the truth is, things break down with the passage of time if no intelligent agent is performing upkeep.

Our world is full of examples of this.

 

[PingviN]

We know for a fact life exists; we're proof of it. So we can cross "proof of life" off the list and start addressing the probability of life on other planets. We know of 8 planets in our own solar system, and around 1,800 confirmed planets outside our solar system; so far we've only discovered life on one of these (Earth). NASA estimates that there are at least 100,000,000,000 planets in the Milky Way alone, and that is only one galaxy out of potentially 170,000,000,000. If we estimate that we are roughly average in the number of planets our galaxy contains, that gives us 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe at minimum. A more likely equation estimates trillions of planets in our own galaxy, so we'll tack an extra zero or two on to that absurdly long number of planets; for simplicity's sake, 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It's one thing to be one in a billion or one in a trillion. But one in a septillion? That seems unlikely. Even if we assume that only one in every quadrillion planets will give rise to life, that's billions and billions of planets across the galaxy with life on them. The numbers are just so impossibly huge that it's difficult to comprehend that we'd be so lucky as to be the only planet to get life somehow.

And then you have the issue of time. Stars and planet doesn't live for ever and I assume we can say the same for life forms. Even if life existed [somewhere, sometime] that life would have to live right now for us to notice. Given the ridiculously long number of stars and the equally ridiculously long period of time, there might have been a lot of intelligent life forms that were born, lived and then got extinct on other planets without ever reaching the technological standpoint of being able to achieve the means to travel through space.

Us ever encountering intelligent life is highly improbable, because the universe is massive and the life span of mankind is very short in a galactic sense.

 

[jhbball]

This is my point exactly, and my comment had nothing to do with Evolution as per PingVin's post.

Of course erosion happens; that's pretty much common sense and I would think that I didn't have to explain that part to people here. I just figured that if you can go from simple to complex simply with the passage of time without any intelligent intervention, then any matter should do the same given the time and circumstances.

But I think the truth is, things break down with the passage of time if no intelligent agent is performing upkeep.

Our world is full of examples of this.

So therefore Jesus!

 

[Retro Rob]

So therefore Jesus!

Nope, just conversing. Just because you don't like an answer doesn't make it untrue.

 

[PingviN]

So therefore Jesus!

So therefor an almighty creator that created a universe so vast it's impossible to grasp. Then this creator waited for billions of years before putting the first signs of life on the planet we call Earth, letting the rest of the vast universe be empty. Then he waited for hundreds of millions of years for life to evolve into life as we know it today. Then, after thousands of years of worshiping false gods, he decided that now was the right time to send his son (which also was himself) to die for mankind's sins, of which he clearly cares a whole lot.

:hmm:

 

[Retro Rob]

Then again, we still don't have proof of any extraterrestrial life, so you can certainly just take those numbers as a sign that God loves us that much more than the other septillion planets he created, which is not necessarily a bad thought.

When you think about it, that makes sense.

Say for instance that you were building a town and converting it from an uninhabited desert to a bustling city. You just completed one building thus far to house a few thousand people...leaving the vast majority of the land unconverted for now. You still, perhaps, plan on making use of the 99% of unconverted land, but you've run into serious issues with the residents in your current building and decide to clean up the troublemakers before moving on.

Does that mean you love the rest of the desert less? No, it just means you're focusing your attention on where you have the trouble, after all, no one else is lives on the unconverted land, so there's no reason to divert your attention there.

This explains why God focuses of Earth and not the "septillion planets he created". Perhaps there are no inhabitants, thus no reason to worry about those other planets, but that in on way eliminates the possibility that he has a purpose for the rest of the Universe.

 

[witeken]

When you think about it, that makes sense.

Say for instance that you were building a town and converting it from an uninhabited desert to a bustling city. You just completed one building thus far to house a few thousand people...leaving the vast majority of the land unconverted for now. You still, perhaps, plan on making use of the 99% of unconverted land, but you've run into serious issues with the residents in your current building and decide to clean up the troublemakers before moving on.

Does that mean you love the rest of the desert less? No, it just means you're focusing your attention on where you have the trouble, after all, no one else is lives on the unconverted land, so there's no reason to divert your attention there.

This explains why God focuses of Earth and not the "septillion planets he created". Perhaps there are no inhabitants, thus no reason to worry about those other planets, but that in on way eliminates the possibility that he has a purpose for the rest of the Universe.

Okay, so omnipotent God is using us for playing SimCity? That's ridiculous and exactly why I'm an anti-theist.

 

[Retro Rob]

Okay, so omnipotent God is using us for playing SimCity? That's ridiculous and exactly why I'm an anti-theist.

The point isn't about building a city, the analogy is clearly designed to illustrate why God focuses on this one planet and not the rest.

It seems you're trying to make woefully bad joke to intentionally soil the point you know I made, which you probably clearly understand...and why you ignored the latter half of my post.



BTW, need anymore straw for that strawman?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

But I think the truth is, things break down with the passage of time if no intelligent agent is performing upkeep.

Our world is full of examples of this.

But that is simply preposterous and you are either willfully or negligently disregarding the counterexamples.

Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures, Benard convection, mountain formation, stellar evolution, etc, etc.

I'm not exaggerating when I say you don't have the first clue about what you nonetheless feel compelled to blather endlessly. I humbly suggest much less talkie and much more readie.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh, thought you said something.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This explains why God focuses of Earth and not the "septillion planets he created".

No it doesn't. What kind of ridiculous absurdity is that? Is God limited in resources? Is there a limit to his attention span? Your God has A.D.D.?

Holy crap, do you even think about what you write before your start banging away on your keyboard, or is it just unfiltered bovine excrement all the time?

 

[Retro Rob]

No it doesn't. What kind of ridiculous absurdity is that? Is God limited in resources? Is there a limit to his attention span? Your God has A.D.D.?

Holy crap, do you even think about what you write before your start banging away on your keyboard, or is it just unfiltered bovine excrement all the time?

You mad, bruh?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm not exaggerating when I say you don't have the first clue about what you nonetheless feel compelled to blather endlessly. I humbly suggest much less talkie and much more readie.

I don't "have the first clue about what you..nonetheless"??

That's not a coherent thought, Cerpin Taxt, and I'm the one in need of "more readie"? lol

Pay attention.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The point isn't about building a city, the analogy is clearly designed to illustrate why God focuses on this one planet and not the rest.

In the same way that it's impossible for us to conceive of a billion years or a septillion planets, it's impossible to conceive of the consciousness required to be aware of everything in the Universe simultaneously; there's no good analogy for it because it's literally the awareness of everything. That's the definition of omniscient, which is one of the defining characteristics attributed to God. The notion that he only put life on one planet because he's making sure everything's OK here is more than a little insulting to a being that is supposed to be aware of everything simultaneously. That's like saying Stephen Hawking hasn't developed a unified theory of physics yet because he's too busy continually making sure he remembers how to count to 1. God is supposed to be beyond the petty squabbles of "the people in this one building I built are really being jerks to each other, I better devote the entirety of my time to watching this without intervening" (per your analogy). That just doesn't fit at all with the traditional depiction of God as an all-powerful being.

 

[JEDIYoda]

No it doesn't. What kind of ridiculous absurdity is that? Is God limited in resources? Is there a limit to his attention span? Your God has A.D.D.?

You seem to think that because God is God he has to do something....God being God can do as he wishes...including deciding to limit what he does for whatever reason....you seem to have no grasp on God.....what you grasp quite well is Atheist talking points or in your case...........

 

[JD50]

You mad, bruh?

He makes a good point, you should address it.

 

[alzan]

I don't "have the first clue about what you..nonetheless"??

That's not a coherent thought, Cerpin Taxt, and I'm the one in need of "more readie"? lol

Pay attention.

Actually that's a very coherent thought and statement (his original statement, not you're snipped part).

You're better than that, Rob

In the same way that it's impossible for us to conceive of a billion years or a septillion planets, it's impossible to conceive of the consciousness required to be aware of everything in the Universe simultaneously; there's no good analogy for it because it's literally the awareness of everything. That's the definition of omniscient, which is one of the defining characteristics attributed to God. The notion that he only put life on one planet because he's making sure everything's OK here is more than a little insulting to a being that is supposed to be aware of everything simultaneously. That's like saying Stephen Hawking hasn't developed a unified theory of physics yet because he's too busy continually making sure he remembers how to count to 1. God is supposed to be beyond the petty squabbles of "the people in this one building I built are really being jerks to each other, I better devote the entirety of my time to watching this without intervening" (per your analogy). That just doesn't fit at all with the traditional depiction of God as an all-powerful being.

+1

 

[Retro Rob]

In the same way that it's impossible for us to conceive of a billion years or a septillion planets, it's impossible to conceive of the consciousness required to be aware of everything in the Universe simultaneously; there's no good analogy for it because it's literally the awareness of everything. That's the definition of omniscient, which is one of the defining characteristics attributed to God.

How does being aware of everything defeat my point that he only created one planet with life on it that God is interested in?

I made no implications that his ability to know was limited...I'm illustrating how he focuses it on a singular thing, if he so chooses.

Cannot the creator of the Universe pick and choose what he decided to focus on?

Yes or no, please.

The notion that he only put life on one planet because he's making sure everything's OK here is more than a little insulting to a being that is supposed to be aware of everything simultaneously.

If there is no life outside of Earth, what else is there to be aware of? Empty space? Also, where did I say he wasn't aware of everything else?

I can feed a whole herd of cows with all the straw you're creating.

That's like saying Stephen Hawking hasn't developed a unified theory of physics yet because he's too busy continually making sure he remembers how to count to 1.

Where did I say God can only focus on one thing at a time?

God is supposed to be beyond the petty squabbles of "the people in this one building I built are really being jerks to each other, I better devote the entirety of my time to watching this without intervening"

Who said God wasn't beyond the petty squabbles but you?

Strawman bypassed.

 

[witeken]

The point isn't about building a city, the analogy is clearly designed to illustrate why God focuses on this one planet and not the rest.

It seems you're trying to make woefully bad joke to intentionally soil the point you know I made, which you probably clearly understand...and why you ignored the latter half of my post.



BTW, need anymore straw for that strawman?

Your analogy suggests that he built humans to play around with and once he'd done with earth he will move on to one of the gazillion other planets he already made but so far ignored.

BTW, what would you do if you're omniscient and omnipotent?