CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[sealybobo]

As far as your OP, I've already given my answer...random chance. Attempting to assign reason or meaning when we currently have no evidence to support such theories may be popular (I mean Zeus worked for explaining and giving reason to lightening for hundreds of years) but that doesn't make it any more true.

...which requires a HIGH degree of faith. Too much for most folks. You are a deeply faithful believer indeed. Dismissing other faiths doesn't change it.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...explain how, given our current evidence and knowledge base...that this is deeply faithful. Perhaps I am a devout believer. Perhaps I lack all of the facts. Please, provide reasoning for your argument instead of just stating your conclusion. Where, specifically, am I being faithful and believing where there is no evidence?

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. There have been many stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. "Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon. "Where's the dragon?" you ask. "Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and God? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as me proving it true.

What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help.
Despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Agnostic?

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

 

[Iceweasel]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Why? Nature is profligate. Can you truly conceive of the vastness of space? Nature spews forth hundreds of millions of potential lives to perpetuate a given species, almost all of which will fail in their purpose and die. You really believe that an individual sperm is given a "special boost" by God? If so, why not just produce a single sperm? Vast hordes of potential lives are produced, vast reaches of space. Nature seems organized specifically for random chance to play out. Produce enough potentialities, and maybe one of them might actualize, whether it's life on a planet or life in a single instance of procreation.

You responded to the wrong poster. I didn't make those arguments. I said I don't believe the universe and life happened on their own. Bring me evidence and I'll accept it. Chest thumping isn't evidence.

"I can't muster up that measure of faith."

You made that argument, no? WTF chest thumping means, I have no idea. If I misinterpreted that statement, say how. What you seemed to be saying is that the mechanism by which life comes into existence cannot be random. My reply stated, quite clearly I thought, that you are not capable of truly comprehending the scale of the universe. How in the name of reason can you see a system which is so wasteful and identify a specific intent behind that process? One sperm amongst 250 million succeeds and you claim it's God which gives that sperm a turbo boost? What evidence is there of that? If God has a specific sperm in mind why produce the other 249+ million sperm? The profligacy of nature seems a much better argument for random chance than for a intervention by a divine entity.

What's even more of a mystery to me is why people who accept things on faith want to argue about them? Faith and reason are antithetical to one another.

You got yourself all confused. I didn't say anything complicated. I don't believe the universe could have jump started itself into existence. You rebuttal that I don't know how vast the universe is bizarre. The bigger and more complex it is is supposed to make it more believable?

And as I said the simplest life form would have bot only been able to survive, but to reproduce. And have such energy it lives wherever it can. Your chest thumping doesn't change any of it.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, you didn't admit you don't know you said the opposite. I said all along I believe in a creator because I can't buy random chance creating everything but don't know any more about him/it. The words are still there, they didn't evolve into something else while sitting on a server somewhere.

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

You've said such stupid things I can only dump on you mounds of facts and information that tell me why people who talk like you are stupid as fuck. Now you want to go back and nit pick what I cut and pasted? Fuck you. You are just simply full of shit. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you because I've done it before with other retarded theists and in the end, you are going to cling on to your imaginary friend who you can't really define or prove no matter what because we can't disprove god.

That's the proof you have.

a. We can't disprove god
b. You can't imagine all this happened without a god

Congratulations you are a full retard.

The problem is you can't understand what you don't already believe so nothing can possibly sound reasonable. A&B is true for me. I don't care if you like it, nobody needs your approval. The fact that you can't prove a secular cause is a frustration you need to deal with if that's your belief. Don't put it on me.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other.

Nobody on this Earth really knows. All we can do is try to make sense of things the best we can, using the measures we trust.

I trust the scientific method.

I wish we could talk at a round table and discuss this in person.. oh well...
I need to go soon....

A round table? Those are the worst! People get beheaded and stuff when they lack a religion...

But it's ok... we both want good things for humans and all life on the planet. We don't disagree on that. That's all that matters!

Now if we can get Isis AL queda the Taliban and boka raham on board. I don't like any story that isn't true but let's focus first on the most insane of all the stories.

dude, my avatar is a headless horseman... get it?

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Athiests and agnostics are certainly not evil for not believing. And maybe there is an eternal creator who created and rules over the eternal cosmos but is not believing there is really the greatest of sins? Of course not. Only a religion would say it was.

This is what agnostics and athiests have in common. We both call bs on all religions. That's what an agnostic says to the Jesus Mohammad and moses stories. Not buying it. Other than that it's just a maybe

No, an agnostic may sit on the fence regarding a particular religion. He is saying he doesn't know. Being agnostic doesn't automatically rule out any religion.

The atheist is different. They claim their is no god but they can't know it so it too is a matter of faith. That apparently others them but the inconsistency is all on them.

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

 

[Iceweasel]

Athiests and agnostics are certainly not evil for not believing. And maybe there is an eternal creator who created and rules over the eternal cosmos but is not believing there is really the greatest of sins? Of course not. Only a religion would say it was.

This is what agnostics and athiests have in common. We both call bs on all religions. That's what an agnostic says to the Jesus Mohammad and moses stories. Not buying it. Other than that it's just a maybe

No, an agnostic may sit on the fence regarding a particular religion. He is saying he doesn't know. Being agnostic doesn't automatically rule out any religion.

The atheist is different. They claim their is no god but they can't know it so it too is a matter of faith. That apparently others them but the inconsistency is all on them.

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

 

[sakinago]

I said it several times already, I cannot understand it for you. We don't have "evidence" that life, or the universe for that matter, simply jump started itself into existence. You are demonstrating a high level of faith to believe so. No evidence, no facts but a firm belief = faith. How many times does it need to be explained to you?

The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer. Could be aliens??? Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organization and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness,even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.

Note: Crystallization is one example of how matter can readily self-organize into complex, ordered shapes and structures.

See also: The Story of Everything by Carl Sagan (a must watch), BBC – The Secret Life of Chaos (a must watch), BBC – The Cell: Spark of Life (a must watch), Self-Organization, Evolution, The Watchmaker Analogy, Ultimate 747 gambit, Junkyard Tornado (Hoyle’s fallacy).

Additionally: The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, Evolution of the Eye, Chromosome 2,Bacterial Flagellum, TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims.

“The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life.” – Lawrence Krauss

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” – Charles Darwin

Spiral patterns in Galaxies, Cyclones, Whirlpools, Broccoli, Shells, BZ Reactions, Subatomic Particles, Fractals and Archimedes Diagram. All explainable by natural processes.

Not sure if you are implying this or not, but above argument is also a no sequitur, since it does not disprove the existence of a creator. We have no way to prove, that a creator did not set up these laws of physics like dominoes, and everything we see is just the result of how those dominoes fall. It's a chicken and egg conversation you two have been having. But what I'm saying if your going to point out a logical fallacy, don't turn around and use one yourself.

It's not on me to prove there isn't a god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims aboutand definitions of a god. [Video]

See also: Putting faith in its place (a must watch), A Lack of Belief in Gods, Critical Thinking.
Why there is no god

Nope not shifting the burden of proof. Just stating burden of proof either way is going to be hard to come by, thus turning it into a chicken or the egg, for now. I've never asked you to disprove God, what I stated was there's not really anyway to do it. Since your disbelief of God seems to be predicated on the fact that you've tried every religion, and have discovered yourself that they lack reason and logic, If that's good enough for you, then great (that argument is a logical fallacy as well, appeal to authority I believe). That still doesn't mean there isn't one. Now if your in a discussion on whether or not the earth is 5000 or whatever years old or not, now that is a completly different story than whether or not God exist. It's kind of unfair but the god argument gets a, for lack of a better term, a trump card in the form of, if there is a god, it is extra-demential, or outside of the dementions of existence (that means both space and time) as well as all powerful or outside of our perceptions of power and ability. Now that certainly doesn't prove anything to affirmative of gods existence, but anything outside of complete and utter disproof of existence, the affirmative will always be able to come back with "well that was how the creator designed it," in one form or another. If you believe there is no existence of God than that is fine, I will let this discussion continue with you two as long as some form of worth that will be added to the debate. But added worth will run out quite quickly. After all it is a chicken and egg argument.

But I have the answer to the chicken and egg argument. If you knew evolution you would know it too. There was no first adult chicken and there was no first egg. Chickens evolved from another species just like humans. And just like us, if you go back far enough you'll see chickens crawled out of the water too just like we did. So there was no original adult chicken and god didn't poof into existence chicken eggs.



There was no first human and there was no first chicken. Glad I could enlighten you.

Nice not so subtle red herring. I understand the origins of the chicken, when I reference chicken and egg, what I am describing is a circle argument. But I'm sure you know this

 

[sakinago]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

 

[sealybobo]

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

You've said such stupid things I can only dump on you mounds of facts and information that tell me why people who talk like you are stupid as fuck. Now you want to go back and nit pick what I cut and pasted? Fuck you. You are just simply full of shit. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you because I've done it before with other retarded theists and in the end, you are going to cling on to your imaginary friend who you can't really define or prove no matter what because we can't disprove god.

That's the proof you have.

a. We can't disprove god
b. You can't imagine all this happened without a god

Congratulations you are a full retard.

The problem is you can't understand what you don't already believe so nothing can possibly sound reasonable. A&B is true for me. I don't care if you like it, nobody needs your approval. The fact that you can't prove a secular cause is a frustration you need to deal with if that's your belief. Don't put it on me.

This is why scientists waste zero time debating the God hypothesis. It's OK you can't believe the eternal cosmos exist without the need for a creator and it's OK I don't believe a God exists.

But you people do care. Google pot smoking philanderer more electable than atheist and look how your Muslim brothers behead non believers.

I think it's a fun debate up until people insist God visited their ancient ancestors. Fucking liars

 

[sealybobo]

Athiests and agnostics are certainly not evil for not believing. And maybe there is an eternal creator who created and rules over the eternal cosmos but is not believing there is really the greatest of sins? Of course not. Only a religion would say it was.

This is what agnostics and athiests have in common. We both call bs on all religions. That's what an agnostic says to the Jesus Mohammad and moses stories. Not buying it. Other than that it's just a maybe

No, an agnostic may sit on the fence regarding a particular religion. He is saying he doesn't know. Being agnostic doesn't automatically rule out any religion.

The atheist is different. They claim their is no god but they can't know it so it too is a matter of faith. That apparently others them but the inconsistency is all on them.

That's why the most rational position is agnostic atheist.

You either believe Mary was a virgin or not. Agnostics go to hell with atheists.

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

You don't know for sure either. You miss the point. We will agree you can't know gods don't exist so no one can be an athiest if it means you KNOW gods don't exist because you can't know. If that's true then you can't be a theist either because you can't know for sure.

Is my invisible pink dragon real? Prove its not

 

[sakinago]

No, you didn't admit you don't know you said the opposite. I said all along I believe in a creator because I can't buy random chance creating everything but don't know any more about him/it. The words are still there, they didn't evolve into something else while sitting on a server somewhere.

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

You've said such stupid things I can only dump on you mounds of facts and information that tell me why people who talk like you are stupid as fuck. Now you want to go back and nit pick what I cut and pasted? Fuck you. You are just simply full of shit. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you because I've done it before with other retarded theists and in the end, you are going to cling on to your imaginary friend who you can't really define or prove no matter what because we can't disprove god.

That's the proof you have.

a. We can't disprove god
b. You can't imagine all this happened without a god

Congratulations you are a full retard.

And at this point, this is where there is no more added value to conversation. If you wish to continue, I will open up a new post under religion if you want to get it all out. I can no longer allow this conversation to happen, not only has it run its course (which I warned about), it has also taken a nasty turn that is
Not befitting of the CDZ (which is why I chose to post here in the first place as opposed to SCIENCE NOT RELIGION). But thank you for the article on protein synthesis, I had not heard of that

And I have to say you have turned fine tuning into a straw man when you probably didn't have to(sorry just read that post now). The argument behind fine tuning is not that the universe is friendly to life, it's the fact that there are even stellar and planetary masses to give life even the slightest chance to form. Ice Weasel did not put forth the best arguments, but you will cross paths with someone who does, be prepared.

 

[sealybobo]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

 

[sealybobo]

Are those the two only options? I can see how if you were presented with those two choices you might pick a God that created everything on purpose rather than think "random chance" did it. Who even knows what that means? Universes get started everyday in the cosmos.

I think infinite universes have always existed and will always exist. We live in reality. Why are there humans and moons and Suns? Who knows. That's just what comes out of stars when they explode. Takes about 10 billion years for life to start after a universes birth. My hypothesis is based on logic reasoning and evidence. Yours is based on ignorance. So's mine but yours is wishful thinking. And your side had to lie and claim he visited. Even you admit that

What did God do trillions of years before our universe?

Can God travel beyond our universe

Funny you don't need to know who created God. I got news for you. The universe is eternal. No need for a God.

You forgot (again) to support any of your assertions. Asking me questions and calling me ignorant doesn't cut it.

I've given you tons of evidence but I'm sure you will poo poo it all

The universe is fine-tuned for life.

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes and empty space.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended. On the contrary, the sheer scale of the universe in both spaceand time and our understanding of its development indicate we are non-central to the scheme of things; mere products of chance, physical laws and evolution. To believe otherwise amounts to an argument from incredulity and a hubris mix ofanthropocentrism and god of the gaps thinking.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simplyseem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them. We cannot prove that all otherpossible forms of life would be infeasible with a different set of conditions or constants because the only universe that we can observe is the one we occupy. Indeed, modelling[2] suggests star formation (a necessary precursor to our form of biology) may be viable under a number of different universal conditions.

Without actual proof of creation, naturalistic explanations for the properties of this universe cannot be wholly ruled out. It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life. The fact that our particular universe has the physical constants we observe may be no more to the point than the fact a hand of cards, dealt from a shuffled deck, is the one a hypothetical player holds. Though the chances of any one universe being hospitable to life might be low, the conditional probability of a form of life observing a set of constants suitable to it is exactly unity. That is to say, every possible universe would ‘appear’ fine-tuned to the form of life it harbors, while all those inhospitable universes would never be observed by life at all.

How does that demonstrate a secular cause? You make no sense.

You've said such stupid things I can only dump on you mounds of facts and information that tell me why people who talk like you are stupid as fuck. Now you want to go back and nit pick what I cut and pasted? Fuck you. You are just simply full of shit. I'm not going to keep playing this game with you because I've done it before with other retarded theists and in the end, you are going to cling on to your imaginary friend who you can't really define or prove no matter what because we can't disprove god.

That's the proof you have.

a. We can't disprove god
b. You can't imagine all this happened without a god

Congratulations you are a full retard.

And at this point, this is where there is no more added value to conversation. If you wish to continue, I will open up a new post under religion if you want to get it all out. I can no longer allow this conversation to happen, not only has it run its course (which I warned about), it has also taken a nasty turn that is
Not befitting of the CDZ (which is why I chose to post here in the first place as opposed to SCIENCE NOT RELIGION). But thank you for the article on protein synthesis, I had not heard of that

And I have to say you have turned fine tuning into a straw man when you probably didn't have to(sorry just read that post now). The argument behind fine tuning is not that the universe is friendly to life, it's the fact that there are even stellar and planetary masses to give life even the slightest chance to form. Ice Weasel did not put forth the best arguments, but you will cross paths with someone who does, be prepared.

It is amazing. Sorry I'll move on

 

[sakinago]

Random chance that life forms on its' own and not only survives but lives on to multiply and change into endless life forms with a drive for survival so intense it can be found in extremely inhospitable places? I can't muster up that level of faith.

Why? Nature is profligate. Can you truly conceive of the vastness of space? Nature spews forth hundreds of millions of potential lives to perpetuate a given species, almost all of which will fail in their purpose and die. You really believe that an individual sperm is given a "special boost" by God? If so, why not just produce a single sperm? Vast hordes of potential lives are produced, vast reaches of space. Nature seems organized specifically for random chance to play out. Produce enough potentialities, and maybe one of them might actualize, whether it's life on a planet or life in a single instance of procreation.

You responded to the wrong poster. I didn't make those arguments. I said I don't believe the universe and life happened on their own. Bring me evidence and I'll accept it. Chest thumping isn't evidence.

If your looking for evidence nothing can be fully substantiated, since the amount time and conditions etc, cannot be replicated. But what there is, is possible theories and what we have been able to observe. Is this to be discounted?

 

[sealybobo]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

You got me to read up on how and why we became more intelligent. Fascinating stuff. Human history goes back 7 million years but modern man is only the last 50,000. When we stood up to walk and look out for predators we started using our hands. Started making tools and using our brains more. And they said monkeys or great apes show signs of being intelligent if left alone for 7 billion years and how Neanderthal man may have been smarter than us still we killed them.

We are the only intelligent species because the others died out. Maybe we wiped them out 6 or 4 or 2 million years ago.

 

[sealybobo]

I get this might not necassarily belong in CDZ, but since I can't stand any of the other forums, this is where I'm posting it. I hope that this becomes a fun conversation

First question: How did chemicals from lifeless reactions, turn into life?

Second: How did the early simple, single cell prokaryotic forms of life that had reached their available energy threshold, jumped to a higher energy threshold and turn into a eukaryotic form. A much more complex cell, that becomes the building block for complex life.

Finally: How did the jump happen from standard animal intelligence to human consciousness? Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

What do you mean by lifeless reaction? The planet first became habitable before life inhabited it. There were billions of years our planet didn't have water it was a hot ball. Have you seen the cosmos series' with Sagan and Tyson? They explain all this stuff. You should watch them both twice.

 

[sealybobo]

I would have said life might have come here from Mars but then how did life get started on Mars?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

When we can claim to understand their communication (and parts of that communication take place in frequencies we can't hear) we can make more meaningful evaluations of their true intelligence. The divergence of our environments and physiologies makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons about our standard ambitions and drives. What would our intelligence be without our thumbs, let alone our hands and arms?

 

[sealybobo]

Sure there are some smart animals out there, but they do not hold a candle to human intelligence.

The only intelligence we humans can understand is human intelligence. Judging the intelligence of different species by evaluating how closely theirs resembles our own is an exercise in provincial chauvanism.

"We can imagine what it is like to be a cat, but we cannot imagine what it is like for a cat to be a cat."

No other species is sufficiently "intelligent" to destroy millions of its own young and to systematically destroy the habitat necessary for its survival. How intelligent is that?

A ridiculous statement. We are on the verge of creating intelligence greater than our own, but we can't understand animal intelligence? Well I guess that leaves the whole fields of zoology and behavioral psychology moot. And animals eat their own young all the time!!! They have no clue what they do to their own habitat!!! Outside of a handful they cannot purposefully manipulate the environment around them to their advantage. Nor can they hypothetically think.

Hmmn, dunno about that last statement. Dolphins cannot hypothesize? How can you know that? Cetaceans have a different order of intelligence than humans, and I'm not sure that we can quantify or qualify the differences or similarities so easily.

Dolphins actually do show signs of hypothetical thinking, culture, and even speech, which is why I chose them as an example for comparison. While they show these signs, it is still at a rudimentary level. While it's difficult to puts oneself in the mind of a doplhin, it's not impossible to measure their levels of cognitive thinking, or what is going on for the most part in their brain. And while yes, they are very smart creatures, compared to us they still fall well behind.

When we can claim to understand their communication (and parts of that communication take place in frequencies we can't hear) we can make more meaningful evaluations of their true intelligence. The divergence of our environments and physiologies makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons about our standard ambitions and drives. What would our intelligence be without our thumbs, let alone our hands and arms?

If we survived without arms we'd have to have all been really smart or have developed acid spit and shit that would make a Billy goat puke.