ATHEISM: How Many Gods Are There?

[ding]

Yes, it does imply that it beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time AND THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. That's how laws of nature work. Isn't that what Professor George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, meant when he said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.... .... and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

A creationist is someone who believes in the literal account of the Bible. As in the universe is ~5000 years old.

An important part of the foundation I am establishing is that the universe has became self aware. Do you believe the universe is self aware?

If that's what Dr. Wald insists (and ONLY if it is), then I must disagree with him. I don't believe we can assume that cognizant beings (those that can know and create) will inevitably arise, given enough time and the right conditions, though I'd agree that it's probable (and it certainly happened here on Earth).

I am closer to agreement with him in his assertion that we have "good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life," as he presented it only as an expression of probability. It seems highly likely that, given the unimaginable size and diversity of the universe and the number of likely habitats, the universe is full of life.

As for your last question -- no, I don't believe the universe is "self-aware." Indeed, unless the meaning of "self-aware" is something far beyond what I understand it to be, the question actually seems a bit ludicrous to me.

You ever heard of the conservation of matter and energy? The matter that is in your body existed when space and time was created. It has only changed form since then. The universe is literally having a discussion about itself right now.

 

[ding]

Yes, it does imply that it beings that know and create will eventually arise given enough time AND THE RIGHT CONDITIONS. That's how laws of nature work. Isn't that what Professor George Wald, Nobel Laureate and atheist, meant when he said, "We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible.... .... and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

A creationist is someone who believes in the literal account of the Bible. As in the universe is ~5000 years old.

An important part of the foundation I am establishing is that the universe has became self aware. Do you believe the universe is self aware?

If that's what Dr. Wald insists (and ONLY if it is), then I must disagree with him. I don't believe we can assume that cognizant beings (those that can know and create) will inevitably arise, given enough time and the right conditions, though I'd agree that it's probable (and it certainly happened here on Earth).

I am closer to agreement with him in his assertion that we have "good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life," as he presented it only as an expression of probability. It seems highly likely that, given the unimaginable size and diversity of the universe and the number of likely habitats, the universe is full of life.

As for your last question -- no, I don't believe the universe is "self-aware." Indeed, unless the meaning of "self-aware" is something far beyond what I understand it to be, the question actually seems a bit ludicrous to me.

"...there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings..." Stephen Hawking

“Our results imply that our evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with their feedbacks onto their planets as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn’t.”

Are we alone? A new twist on the famous Drake Equation ups the odds that we aren’t

We live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This potential existed the moment that space and time were created and was preordained by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created.

 

[Mudda]

We live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This potential existed the moment that space and time were created and was preordained by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created.

Nothing at the BB could predict what would happen, we went through this before. What evidence at the BB showed that humans were going to be? None. Which is what you're about to say, although in a long, convoluted, nonsensical way.
Go for it. It was fun last time, maybe we can squeeze a little more fun out this time too.

 

[Paladin_]

"...there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings..." Stephen Hawking

“Our results imply that our evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with their feedbacks onto their planets as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn’t.”

Are we alone? A new twist on the famous Drake Equation ups the odds that we aren’t

We live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This potential existed the moment that space and time were created and was preordained by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created.

Your quote from Dr. Hawking only reiterates my own thoughts on the matter. I agree with him wholeheartedly that there is a "reasonable probability" for life to form, and to evolve into intelligent beings. I just can't say for certain that it's inevitable.

Can we move on to the next premise of your argument, or is that a sticking point?

 

[ding]

"...there is a reasonable probability for life to form, and to evolve to intelligent beings..." Stephen Hawking

“Our results imply that our evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with their feedbacks onto their planets as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn’t.”

Are we alone? A new twist on the famous Drake Equation ups the odds that we aren’t

We live in a universe where given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. This potential existed the moment that space and time were created and was preordained by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created.

Your quote from Dr. Hawking only reiterates my own thoughts on the matter. I agree with him wholeheartedly that there is a "reasonable probability" for life to form, and to evolve into intelligent beings. I just can't say for certain that it's inevitable.

Can we move on to the next premise of your argument, or is that a sticking point?

How can it not be inevitable? You are here are you not?

 

[Paladin_]

How can it not be inevitable? You are here are you not?

Yes, I am here. But who can correctly assert that things couldn't have gone the other way -- that our universe could have evolved into a cold expanse totally devoid of life? We can only speculate.

Is this really an essential point? Or are we, again, arguing over some irrelevant minutiae?

 

[ding]

How can it not be inevitable? You are here are you not?

Yes, I am here. But who can correctly assert that things couldn't have gone the other way -- that our universe could have evolved into a cold expanse totally devoid of life? We can only speculate.

Is this really an essential point? Or are we, again, arguing over some irrelevant minutiae?

Because the laws of nature are repeatable. Given the right conditions and enough time, potential which exists will be realized. Surely you do not dispute the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created, right?

Yes, it is an essential point.

 

[Paladin_]

Because the laws of nature are repeatable. Given the right conditions and enough time, potential which exists will be realized. Surely you do not dispute the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created, right?

Yes, it is an essential point.

Yes, I agree that the "potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created" (with the caveat that we still don't know HOW, exactly, that "creation" occurred).

Well, I'm glad we finally sorted THAT out!

 

[ding]

Because the laws of nature are repeatable. Given the right conditions and enough time, potential which exists will be realized. Surely you do not dispute the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created, right?

Yes, it is an essential point.

Yes, I agree that the "potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created" (with the caveat that we still don't know HOW, exactly, that "creation" occurred).

Well, I'm glad we finally sorted THAT out!

And given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized even beings that know and create arising.

 

[Paladin_]

And given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized even beings that know and create arising.

And, given enough time and the right conditions, all potentialities may be realized, even beings that know and create.

 

[ding]

And given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized even beings that know and create arising.

And, given enough time and the right conditions, all potentialities may be realized, even beings that know and create.

You do not understand the concept of what the right conditions mean.

 

[BreezeWood]

You do not understand the concept of what the right conditions mean.

right conditions is not a conceptual recipient.

 

[ding]

And given enough time and the right conditions all potentialities will be realized even beings that know and create arising.

And, given enough time and the right conditions, all potentialities may be realized, even beings that know and create.

According to the laws of nature the matter and energy which make up who you are existed when space and time were created and when you die, that same matter and energy will return back to the universe, never to be destroyed. You came from dust and you shall return to dust exactly how the Bible tells it. This is not a matter of taste or opinion. This is scientific fact.

 

[yiostheoy]

Agnosticism is a scientific approach to religion.

No it isn't.

Agnosticism's fundamental principle and doctrine is "show me".

No it isn't.

The problem with agnosticism is that it is like mixing apples and oranges.

Who's mixing apples and oranges? You?

Science is the regular collection of data with precision instruments and the formulation of inferences from those data. Galileo and his telescope are credited with the origin of pure science.

Who's talking about science? You?

Religion is more ancient and consists of the pronouncements of holy men/women regarding the nature of God(s) and the proper order of living that humans should follow.

Probably.

They have nothing in common.

What has nothing in common?

Putting them together is childish foolishness.

You are putting them together .... not me.

Ergo agnostics are fools.

You are clearly wrong.

GLASNOST your disagreement with logic is noted.

It is exactly logic that I believe in. I adhere to logic. I am devoted to it. It is you who've made several errors in logic in all but one of your statements above.

(1) Religion, (2) Philosophy, and (3) Science have NOTHING in common.

They are each mutually exclusive.

Religion is doctrinal. No rhyme or reason to it. Just some pronouncement by some holy men.

Philosophy is pure human deductive logical though. Logic itself is a branch of Philosophy.

Science is pure physical observation and experimentation resulting in data collection and INDUCTIVE logical thought. Nothing is ever final in Science since everything is merely an INFERENCE.

These are the 3 great human thought processes -- Religion, Philosophy, and Science.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your quote from Dr. Hawking only reiterates my own thoughts on the matter. I agree with him wholeheartedly that there is a "reasonable probability" for life to form, and to evolve into intelligent beings. I just can't say for certain that it's inevitable.

all living are intelligent beings, not all life forms per Terra firma / oceanic might include both Fauna and Flora, being separate probabilities.

 

[Paladin_]

You do not understand the concept of what the right conditions mean.

That may well be true (though I think not). But I DO understand that, just because the conditions are "right" for something to happen, it doesn't mean it WILL happen, even given enough time. One would think that's logically self-evident!

 

[ding]

You do not understand the concept of what the right conditions mean.

That may well be true (though I think not). But I DO understand that, just because the conditions are "right" for something to happen, it doesn't mean it WILL happen, even given enough time. One would think that's logically self-evident!

Really? You mean like music and beings that know and create with natural talents for music? Or mathematics and beings that know and create with natural talents for mathematics? Or the fact that music and mathematical theorems are not created by musicians and mathematicians but merely discovered by musicians and mathematicians because those potentialities existed the moment that space and time were created?

You do realize that everything that has occurred only occurred because they were potentialities, right? And that those potentialities came into existence when space and time came into existence, right? And that those potentialities were governed by the laws of nature which existed before space and time came into existence, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

And that those potentialities were governed by the laws of nature which existed before space and time came into existence, right?

there never was a time they existed separately.