There HAS to be life on other planets..

[ding]

*life as we know it

Sorry, you don't know that your universal statement is true. That's an authoritative declaration you made to support another authoritative declaration.

And even if true, it still doesn't speak to anything but coincidence. That's how wrong you are.

No. Life period. Learn some science.

If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate.

Virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus and is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons. This allows atoms to hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

So change the structure of matter even just a little bit and the universe could still be created the same way but would be devoid of life. This isn't some new revelation. It's been known for quite some time. You are just a dumb ass who opens his mouth before checking the science first.

 

[Cougarbear]

Pay close attention Cougarbear. "Normalcy Bias" refers to minimizing risk, not pretending there are extraterrestrials we must try to find or meet.

What Is Normalcy Bias? | Definition & Example

Normalcy bias is the tendency to underestimate the likelihood or impact of a negative event. Normalcy bias prevents us from understanding the possibility

www.scribbr.com

I wrote a book honoring Nature's God. I explained many details linking science to its Creator. It is cited at the bottom of every post of mine.

I honor Him every day, every way I possibly can. I don't need you posting Scriptures and calling me "typical" with all your pride and arrogance. You stepped in it big time. Now go clean up.

I don't know which book you are referring to since I don't know your name. Try to take that big head off your shoulder long enough to have a conversation. The second statement in the quote concerning normalcy bias says it all. It prevents one from learning and understanding anything outside your norm. So, watch where you are stepping.
Now, What is "Nature's God?" Since I'm unlikely to read your masterpiece, what exactly are you referring to? Elohim? Jehovah? Jesus Christ? Or is it the idea that there is an intelligent design but not a single or group of personage organizing the matter that was not formed yet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Life period.

No, life as we know it. We don't know all possible configurations of the universe.

When you state that not one single other configuration of a universe could have produced any type of life, you're just lying to yourself out loud.

Because you have to tell this lie. It's germane to your magical fetush.

 

[ding]

No, life as we know it. We don't know all possible configurations of the universe.

When you state that not one single other configuration of a universe could have produced any type of life, you're just lying to yourself out loud.

Because you have to tell this lie. It's germane to your magical fetush.

I literally just explained why that is so. If you think there is an error in what I said, show it to me. Otherwise stop wasting my time. I don't have time to waste on a science dullard such as yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I literally just explained why that is so.

No, you pinchedoff a word salad that you used to fool and to impress yourself.

Rational adults not engaged in a backwards think understand that we don't know all possible configurations of a universe. We don't have to tell ourselves a lie to the contrary to support a prescribed belief.

 

[ding]

No, you pinchedoff a word salad that you used to fool and to impress yourself.

Rational adults not engaged in a backwards think understand that we don't know all possible configurations of a universe. We don't have to tell ourselves this lie to support a prescribed belief.

No, there was actual science discussed in that post. Your problem is you are an idiot who thinks he's smart and knows things. You aren't. You are a dullard and I just proved it. So keep on yapping and prove it some more.

 

[Cougarbear]

No. Life period. Learn some science.

If the proton and neutron did not have enormously greater mass than the electron, all matter would be fluid; and if the proton and electron did not possess exactly the same electric charge, no matter would aggregate.

Virtually the whole mass of an atom is in its nucleus and is hardly disturbed at all by the motions of its electrons. This allows atoms to hold its position in a molecule, and molecules their positions in larger structures. Only that circumstance permits molecules to hold their shapes, and solids to exist.

So change the structure of matter even just a little bit and the universe could still be created the same way but would be devoid of life. This isn't some new revelation. It's been known for quite some time. You are just a dumb ass who opens his mouth before checking the science first.

It's truly amazing how intelligent God really is to be able to do things that humans can't and never will in this life. The good news is that in the next, for those with real faith and a valiant testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, those people will be resurrected to a Celestial Glory capable of obtaining the same knowledge Father in Heaven has and create or organize their own universes.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Here we go again…prove God is real.

No problem. Read the words of hundreds of scientists, historians, scholars, and Nobel Laureates. Don't simply discount all of them and rely on the self-serving lies of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Here is a start:

Proof There Is No God (Wink, Nudge)

proof-there-is-no-god.blogspot.com

The insuperable statistics of original naturalistic synthesis of proteins is sufficient scientific proof, but atheists wave such science away with supreme ignorance and arrogance, just as they wave away the fact that 85% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews. The few atheist Nobel Laureates are concentrated in the cheap and easy disciplines such as earned by Yassar Arafat, Al Gore, and Ernest "Suicide" Hemingway. He declared "all thinking men are atheists." Then he blew his own head off with a shotgun, knowing his third wife would find his brains all over their Idaho residence. By the way, Richard Dawkins also married three times, had only one child, compared to the far more Darwinian Osama bin Laden, who had, what, twenty-four?

 

[ding]

Here we go again…prove God is real.

See post #422. And don't try to tell me this isn't the right forum because this is the second time you've asked this question here.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I don't know which book you are referring to since I don't know your name. Try to take that big head off your shoulder long enough to have a conversation. The second statement in the quote concerning normalcy bias says it all. It prevents one from learning and understanding anything outside your norm. So, watch where you are stepping.
Now, What is "Nature's God?" Since I'm unlikely to read your masterpiece, what exactly are you referring to? Elohim? Jehovah? Jesus Christ? Or is it the idea that there is an intelligent design but not a single or group of personage organizing the matter that was not formed yet?

Nature's God is the Creator of.... get this.... nature.
He is named in America's Declaration of Independence.

Join many others like yourself, whose comments are utterly a waste of time, on my Ignore List.
ciao brutto

 

[Cougarbear]

Nature's God is the Creator of.... get this.... nature.
He is named in America's Declaration of Independence.

Join many others like yourself, whose comments are utterly a waste of time, on my Ignore List.
ciao brutto

Really an unintelligent so-called scientist. The Creator is the God of the New Testament.

 

[scruffy]

Actually that's not exactly what the account of Genesis says.

Which one? There are three of them. There's one in John too. They're not necessarily contradictory. The Bible says "that" He did, not much about "how" He did it. Today we understand more about the "how" part. The noteworthy piece is, a bunch of 3000 year old Jews got the order of evolution right. All except one, which is easy to forgive in 700 years of oral recitation.

 

[ding]

Which one? There are three of them. There's one in John too. They're not necessarily contradictory. The Bible says "that" He did, not much about "how" He did it. Today we understand more about the "how" part. The noteworthy piece is, a bunch of 3000 year old Jews got the order of evolution right. All except one, which is easy to forgive in 700 years of oral recitation.

The only one that matters with regard to creation (i.e. the story of creation Gen 1:1-31). And in that one the only thing created was the universe. Everything else was Let there be as in it appeared at a later time.

These accounts are much older than 3000 years old. As for the order it's pretty remarkable that they got it correct that light appeared after the universe was created. Which is the order they got wrong?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Caveman, replies are NOT just for you or any other person who is quoted. Replies are for EVERYONE. People multiquote to respond to each point made. It lends clarity, not that you care, of course.

I tried to help you on your reply, but obviously you don't want help despite your clear need for it. All of us are smarter than any of us.

For me to reply to a post, (aimed at me or not), I just don't entertain multi quotes. It's just because when I have a conversation with friends and family, we don't converse in a multi quote manner. In fact, in fifty odd years, I've never met anyone who does.

It's everyone's prerogative to use that option, because it's available, but I'm probably one of the very few here that can remember what they wrote in a post.

Back to the thread though, I think it's moved onto Him upstairs, God.

 

[ChemEngineer]

For me to reply to a post, (aimed at me or not), I just don't entertain multi quotes. It's just because when I have a conversation with friends and family, we don't converse in a multi quote manner. In fact, in fifty odd years, I've never met anyone who does.

It's everyone's prerogative to use that option, because it's available, but I'm probably one of the very few here that can remember what they wrote in a post.

Back to the thread though, I think it's moved onto Him upstairs, God.

9,890 posts you've made and you remember them all.

RIIIIIIIIGHT.
Why you must belabor a point that is rather pointless, I cannot begin to understand.
ciao brutto

 

[ThisIsMe]

No problem. Read the words of hundreds of scientists, historians, scholars, and Nobel Laureates. Don't simply discount all of them and rely on the self-serving lies of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Here is a start:

Proof There Is No God (Wink, Nudge)

proof-there-is-no-god.blogspot.com

The insuperable statistics of original naturalistic synthesis of proteins is sufficient scientific proof, but atheists wave such science away with supreme ignorance and arrogance, just as they wave away the fact that 85% of Nobel Laureates are Christians and Jews. The few atheist Nobel Laureates are concentrated in the cheap and easy disciplines such as earned by Yassar Arafat, Al Gore, and Ernest "Suicide" Hemingway. He declared "all thinking men are atheists." Then he blew his own head off with a shotgun, knowing his third wife would find his brains all over their Idaho residence. By the way, Richard Dawkins also married three times, had only one child, compared to the far more Darwinian Osama bin Laden, who had, what, twenty-four?

Ok..i read…most of that, and nowhere did the writer prove God exists. He simply just tried to refute some of the arguments from atheists, but didn’t offer any evidence of the existence of God

Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying God doesn’t exist…I don’t know. But, if you are going to use God as the reason there can’t be life elsewhere in the universe, then I need you to prove that God exists.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The universe spontaneously popping into existence in an improbable manner (i.e. nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter) implausibly being hardwired to produce intelligence (i.e. structure of matter and natural laws) and man's unwavering preference for goodness even when he violates it.

You’re arguing probabilities here…which is exactly what I’m doing by suggesting that the sheer number of planets, solar systems and galaxies in the universe would indicate that there are other places where this could have happened.

Why is my probability argument wrong but yours is right?

 

[ding]

You’re arguing probabilities here…which is exactly what I’m doing by suggesting that the sheer number of planets, solar systems and galaxies in the universe would indicate that there are other places where this could have happened.

Why is my probability argument wrong but yours is right?

No, improbabilities. Such that it can't be an accident and must be intentional. And not planets, solar systems or galaxies either. I'm talking about the improbability of a matter filled universe popping into existence in the first place and the improbability of the structure of matter and laws of nature allowing for life to arise and produce beings that know and create.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, improbabilities. Such that it can't be an accident and must be intentional. And not planets, solar systems or galaxies either. I'm talking about the improbability of a matter filled universe popping into existence in the first place and the improbability of the structure of matter and laws of nature allowing for life to arise and produce beings that know and create.

Ok, so you’re saying it’s improbable that all of this was random, and I’m saying it’s improbable that, given the number of galaxies across the universe, that we are the only ones that developed intelligent life.

Why is my argument wrong and yours right?

 

[ding]

Ok, so you’re saying it’s improbable that all of this was random, and I’m saying it’s improbable that, given the number of galaxies across the universe, that we are the only ones that developed intelligent life.

Why is my argument wrong and yours right?

I don't disagree with your belief. This is a intelligence creating universe because the constant presence of mind made it so. But that doesn't affect what I am saying. Paired particle production should have left a universe filled only with radiation. There are an infinite number of ways matter/energy could be structured that would have allowed this universe to be created exactly the same way as this universe was created but be incapable of producing life. I'm talking about particle charges, sizes and distances from one another. But there is only one configuration which would yield a universe capable of producing life.