Atheism revisited. - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-18-2005, 05:30 AM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:55 AM
The Earth is the ideal place for life that lives on Earth to live is the basic premise of your argument. You follow on that because all of the other planets that we know about do not meet these conditions and do not have life (that we know of) then life must be extremely rare. The existence of life is not a proof of God, the processes can be explained logically through observation, inference and in certain cases replication.

It does not take into account that we know very little about the frequency of terrestrial planets in the universe. We know that Mars had liquid water in the past and the discovery of methane in its atmosphere could be indiciative of microbial life existing there today. In addition you have the some of the Jovian moons posessing liquid water and energy sources. This would mean in our solar system alone there are at least 3 places where life either does exist or could exist. Now extrapolate this to the universe which may be infinitely large, what we know is that when it began to cool and the proverbial lights were turned on the universe was at least 13.7 billion light years in radius from us, it could be infinitely large. There are billions upon billions to the power of trillions of stars that have long enough life spans to allow the emergence of intelligent life. These stars are made of the same stuff as our sun, all the elements that exist here exist elsewhere in the universe and will interact in exactly the same way when put under the same conditions. The rules are the same, the materials are the same and the conditions are endless - surely the emergence of life no matter how improbable is a cosmic inevitability when dealing with such an incomprehensibally large universe.

If we knew more about how many planets there were in our universe then we may be in a better position to understand how probable life is. As it stands any assumptions are biased by our single representative sample and the arrogance of its premier sentient species in its unwavering desire to be special. You tie knots with the circular logic of rare earth inferring a creator, have you considered that although the emergence of life through non-divine means may be rare it has occured here out of luck and we are the product of this? The entire point you make is proving that it is possible for life to be a natural process but then turning around and not accepting that you are the sum product of one very rare series of events in a universe where an inconceivable lot of events happen.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 05:57 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:55 AM
Quote:
Scientists, yes even evolutionists have found that the Earth is so perfect for human life ...it's just not possible.
Which ones, names, publications and fields?

Why do you refer to "evolutionists"? you are making out as if there is a big rift within the scientific community on evolution when in truth there is none. Evolution is a scientific theory that can explain what is observed better than anything else, it is the cornerstone of many fields and discoveries made since it was proposed have only bolstered its validity to a point where gradual change among species is a scientific fact and the processes that drive it are theory.

Human beings exist on earth - a factual statement. The statement you made is contradictary and illogical, you state that something exists and then state that its existence is impossible.

I am on my way to becoming one of these evolutionary biologists and one of the first lessons one should know about science is that it is not the consensus of a few that makes a scientific theory right. It is all about the evidence (so I don't care if Isaac Newton believed in creation or if some of the the most authoratative individuals of the time viewed evolution as a joke when it was presented, these do not add any validity to the argument that evolution is wrong), the theory of evolution has a very high level of confidence because of the vast ammounts of evidence that can best be explained within context of evolution. New discoveries enhance our understanding, for example we understood principles of hereditry by Medel however it would only be in the mid 20th Century when we unravelled the chemical basis for genetic inheritance DNA. The breakthroughs in biology have only strengthened the evidence for evolution, I suggest that you buckle down and read up on evolution from the science textbook and not from the theologically minded with an axe to grind.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 07:02 AM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 370
Local Time: 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by stagman
QUOTE: Why? Why am I doing this? Is it just because I want to poke holes in people’s beliefs so that we can take away what makes them happy? No, I’m doing this because I want to know what is true, be intellectually honest, and be open to reality. And, I hope that you are here for the same reasons.

OK, lets talk about Truth and Reality:
Scientists, yes even evolutionists have found that the Earth is so perfect for human life ...it's just not possible.
1. Our Sun is situated well away from any explosive forces seen in many places across our galaxy and other galaxies.
2. The Earth is the just the right distance away from the Sun, campared to the temperatures on Venus and Mars and Mercury.
3. The Earth has a tilt and this coincides beautifully with a full rotation around the Sun...this influences the wheather patterns on Earth..so we have different seasons which keeps the wheather cycles going. The seasons compliment each other to create a perfect eco-system.
4. The Earth has an atmosphere which keeps temperatures from going to extremes. 400 Degrees Celsius continually on Venus.
Same heat on Mercury, but on the shady side it drops to -180 degrees. Togethor the atmosphere and magnetic field on Earth is just right compared to Venus which has 90 times the pressure as Earth.
5. The Earth has a satellite which effects the tides (and the tectonic plates in a positive way[I'm still trying to find my specific evidence for this..I seem to have misplaced it]). The tidal system effects the wheather as much as the seasonal changes effect the wheather or even more so. The Moon's gravitational pushing and pulling on the crust varies by some 12 per cent each month
6. Water on Earth enables many possibilities, and co-existing with Oxygen enables life to survive.
7. Trees and plants that provide nutrients in the soil, so that they can continue to survive...plants provide the basis of the food structure.

All of these plus more enable life to exist, not only to exist but to flourish......what are the chances of all of the above happening in a universe that somehow came from a big-bang (or whatever the latest assumption is). You hear scientists rattling off the percentages of finding life or finding a habitibal world in some far off galaxy.... after weighing up all the facts...the chances of there being another 'Earth' out there comes to 0.00000000000000000000000001 percent or less.
Add up the 7 points I made above and more that many of you will think of and you come up with a realistic percentage of absolutley zero of planet Earth being like it is...it's simply mind boggling is'nt it!?
The Earth is so perfect it's not possible.
Surely we can't exist without there being a creator.


1) No disrespect, bud, but the point he makes (and me too) is that if your theory of a creator of some sort is correct, evidence is required for who this is and why you have chosen to believe it. I think he deals pretty well with this in his critique of the argument from intelligent design. Evolution is as close to a biological fact as it gets. I think he also is very careful to make sure that people understand the logical implications of exploiting gaps in current science to make assumptions about the universe...ie. a creator. Again, no disrespect meant, but I think he deals with your two posts fairly effectively.

2)When you calculate the chances of humans walking a planet like earth in probabilities like that, you're putting the chicken before the egg. Had the planet not existed in its present form and taken on another instead, we might have evolved into a different life form etc etc. Nature was here first and humans evolved as a result. Humans would not be as we know them today without the natural state, but nature has determined what we are. The fact that all of these things coincide with our existence is no simple coincidence...it is rather part of the reason we exist in our present form. The egg comes before the chicken in evolution. At one point, we would not have described what lay the egg as a chicken.

Jon
__________________
Klink is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 08:34 PM   #19
War Child
 
2Hearts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SC
Posts: 634
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Which ones, names, publications and fields?
Here's a link to an interesting paper I read. It proposes intelligent design as a plausible theory to explain the origin of the biological information required to build new biological forms. To all of you fast readers out there, enjoy!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2177
__________________
2Hearts is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 10:02 PM   #20
The Fly
 
swissair135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 64
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Can we all just get along?

At the end of the day. nobody is going to change their minds no matter the "intellectual stimulation".
__________________
swissair135 is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 10:11 PM   #21
The Fly
 
swissair135's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 64
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by annj


In general we are arrogant to assume we know it all.. when we know absolutely nothing
Beautiful.. very well put!
__________________
swissair135 is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 12:09 AM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by swissair135
Can we all just get along?

At the end of the day. nobody is going to change their minds no matter the "intellectual stimulation".
Quote:
Originally posted by annj
In general we are arrogant to assume we know it all.. when we know absolutely nothing
It's a discussion forum...what else are we supposed to do, sit here and twiddle our thumbs?

As for thinking we know nothing... Well, if you use that attitude not to question, not to seek knowledge, that's exactly what you will know -- nothing.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 12:25 AM   #23
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 12:55 AM
I really hated the depiction of the ontological argument...the author really does not understand it at all
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 12:27 AM   #24
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 12:55 AM
i have St Anselm's ontological argument right in front of me but really it's um, not needed..allow me to summarize:
The definition of God reads roughly "being greater than which can be thought." In other words, God is greater than any conceivable thought. You and I can conceive (sort of) of this notion of God. Well, if we can conceive of God, then the only way for God not to contradict the definition of God is for God to be greater than just our thought. So God has to exist, as existance is how God becomes greater than the conceived God.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 12:41 AM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet
i have St Anselm's ontological argument right in front of me but really it's um, not needed..allow me to summarize:
The definition of God reads roughly "being greater than which can be thought." In other words, God is greater than any conceivable thought. You and I can conceive (sort of) of this notion of God. Well, if we can conceive of God, then the only way for God not to contradict the definition of God is for God to be greater than just our thought. So God has to exist, as existance is how God becomes greater than the conceived God.
I guess that means my cat Milo is God then. He's been telling me this for ages... (don't get in a tizzy...that was just a joke)

Well, it's a fun little thought exercise, but all it proves is that God is a creation of man, not the other way around.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 01:20 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 12:55 AM
while i don't feel affirmed in my belief because of this argument i don't think it only proves God is man-made....you can attack the argument in other ways though:
Think of the greatest alien ever...now the only way for this alien to really be the greatest is for it to be alive.
The ontological argument is completely valid. The conclusion follows from the premises, and the conclusion contradicts the negation of the premises, and vica versa.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 01:28 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 12:55 AM
if i cared more i might post some of descartes ontological arguments that were presented in the meditations
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 02:03 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra





As for thinking we know nothing... Well, if you use that attitude not to question, not to seek knowledge, that's exactly what you will know -- nothing.
Exactly
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 02:50 AM   #29
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 12:55 AM
So do most of you believe scientist are right about the big bang theory?

At the moment most evolutionist's have believed that this event happened 13.7 billion years ago. So that means the radius even at the speed of light would have expanded by now to 27.4 billion light years right? Wrong!
From new data collected from a space probe examining the Cosmic Background Radiation, astronomers estimate the universe is at least 156 billion light years wide. Actually it's long been know that the universe was a lot wider than 27.4 billion light-years...this latest research tells us how much wider.
Reseachers have written in the journal 'Physics Review Letters' the universe must have expanded much faster than light in it's early stage. Physicist Alan Guth proposed over 20 years ago the 'inflation model'. It's no wonder 33 leading scientists have published an 'Open Letter' to the Scientific Community' rejecting the big bang. They refer to 'fudge factors' such as the 'hypothetical' inflation idea, which needs a cosmic density 20 times larger than that required for the big bang to make the light elements.
__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:00 AM   #30
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 12:55 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Human beings exist on earth - a factual statement. The statement you made is contradictary and illogical, you state that something exists and then state that its existence is impossible.



I mean that it would be possible only with a creator.
if you take the creator out of the equation it's impossible.
__________________

__________________
stagman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com