Samsara Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 6 hours ago, Aston Martin said: Why would any creator only allow its creation to survive on a tiny rocky planet and not any of the other celestial bodies around it nor the vastness of space itself? That more-so points to life being rare series of coincidences and not being intelligently designed vs the other way around imo. ot: Nature is fascinating, but the biodiversity of aquatic life specifically is really cool to look at. The odds of life as you know it forming depend on a very specific sequence of extremely low probability events. Replicating these chains of events that sparked life even here on earth is exceedingly impossible. This rare earth hypothesis and the related fine-tuning argument seem to support the inference to the concept of a creator. The scientific materialist camp is actually championing the argument that earth is nothing special in order to discredit the concept of god.
A.R.L Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 6 hours ago, Literature said: Imagine seeing stuff like this and still thinking there's no creator Who created god, and who created their creator and so on? So the first thing must come from nothing, and then again If god that we can't even see comes from nothing, then this real thing that we can see is more opt to do so.
Aston Martin Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 9 minutes ago, Samsara said: The odds of life as you know it forming depend on a very specific sequence of extremely low probability events. Replicating these chains of events that sparked life even here on earth is exceedingly impossible. This rare earth hypothesis and the related fine-tuning argument seem to support the inference to the concept of a creator. The scientific materialist camp is actually championing the argument that earth is nothing special in order to discredit the concept of god. Wrong. The observable universe that we are able to see is 93 billion light years in diameter. For reference, one light year is 5,879,000,000,000 miles (and that’s 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers). Multiply either of those numbers by 93,000,000,000, and you get the diameter (in whichever metric you prefer) of the part of the universe that we are able to see. How much of the universe that we are unable to see is presently unknown to us because the light from objects beyond that distance has not had time to reach us (and probably never will due to the expansion of the universe). I say all that to say that even though the chain of events that lead to life on this planet is exceedingly rare (and we really don’t know how common or rare it currently is outside of our solar system seeing as we haven’t had the technology to look for bio-signatures in the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system until relatively recently), the sheer size of the observable universe still makes very low probabilities possible for it to have happened multiple times coincidentally. These low probabilities can still lead to life randomly forming in multiple places independently of each other without an intelligent creator. We could be the only life in our galaxy, but the observable universe has an estimated 100-200 million galaxies. Even if 0.00001% of those galaxies only have 1 celestial body that has life, that would make still result in an estimation of 2,000 different places in the universe with life. And we have no way of knowing how rare or common life even is in our galaxy due to its sheer size (100,000 light years across) and the fact that, as I previously stated, the technology to look at exoplanet atmospheres outside the solar system is relatively recent. So the rarity of life (which we still do not have a concrete estimate of) is not evidence for a creator. And that still doesn’t even touch on the fact that your post really did not address my initial argument to begin with. It makes no sense for an intelligent creator to create life within a universe that is primarily hostile to it. Making a massive universe but only confining the life in question to one tiny planet does not make sense. Wouldn’t any creator want it’s life to be able to explore space with the same ease with which it could explore Earth? Life evolving on a planet through a series of low probability (but not impossible) occurrences (over the course of billions of years) is a much simpler explanation and that there is much more evidence of (fossil record, geology, ect.) than the alternative theory of some creator designing a universe that is primarily hostile (aside from one tiny planet) to the life that said creator brought into existence. ot: ocean life seen in that video is cool
AlanRickman1946 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 9 hours ago, Mouchette said: I bet it suck dick good It is carnivorous
Abracadabra Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 8 hours ago, Literature said: Sure. If you're genuinely interested here you go I asked you for the “intellectual strength” of your argument, and you sent me a video of a man giving his opinion. Not a surprise you were unable to fulfil my request
Alak96 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 Not religious zealots invading ATRL, one of the most homosexual forums
Samsara Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 3 hours ago, Aston Martin said: Wrong. The observable universe that we are able to see is 93 billion light years in diameter. For reference, one light year is 5,879,000,000,000 miles (and that’s 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers). Multiply either of those numbers by 93,000,000,000, and you get the diameter (in whichever metric you prefer) of the part of the universe that we are able to see. How much of the universe that we are unable to see is presently unknown to us because the light from objects beyond that distance has not had time to reach us (and probably never will due to the expansion of the universe). I say all that to say that even though the chain of events that lead to life on this planet is exceedingly rare (and we really don’t know how common or rare it currently is outside of our solar system seeing as we haven’t had the technology to look for bio-signatures in the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system until relatively recently), the sheer size of the observable universe still makes very low probabilities possible for it to have happened multiple times coincidentally. These low probabilities can still lead to life randomly forming in multiple places independently of each other without an intelligent creator. We could be the only life in our galaxy, but the observable universe has an estimated 100-200 million galaxies. Even if 0.00001% of those galaxies only have 1 celestial body that has life, that would make still result in an estimation of 2,000 different places in the universe with life. And we have no way of knowing how rare or common life even is in our galaxy due to its sheer size (100,000 light years across) and the fact that, as I previously stated, the technology to look at exoplanet atmospheres outside the solar system is relatively recent. So the rarity of life (which we still do not have a concrete estimate of) is not evidence for a creator. And that still doesn’t even touch on the fact that your post really did not address my initial argument to begin with. It makes no sense for an intelligent creator to create life within a universe that is primarily hostile to it. Making a massive universe but only confining the life in question to one tiny planet does not make sense. Wouldn’t any creator want it’s life to be able to explore space with the same ease with which it could explore Earth? Life evolving on a planet through a series of low probability (but not impossible) occurrences (over the course of billions of years) is a much simpler explanation and that there is much more evidence of (fossil record, geology, ect.) than the alternative theory of some creator designing a universe that is primarily hostile (aside from one tiny planet) to the life that said creator brought into existence. ot: ocean life seen in that video is cool My basic takeaway on the first 2 parts of your post is that, “The universe is inconceivably large and much is still unknown therefore aliens could exist.” You are making a conjecture based on what you DON’T know to argue for the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe which is basically the alien fallacy counterpart to the god of the gaps. Logical arguments are formulated based on what we know not what we don’t know otherwise it’s fallacious. Life forming as we know it doesn’t depend on the size of the universe or number of galaxies and stars in it as statistical analyses never prove the existence of anything due to the problem of induction. There is and will be no scientific evidence of a creator since the very notion is purely metaphysical and not scientific, only that particular scientific worldviews would lend credence to the probability or improbability of the concept of a creator. The most learned and rational theists would tell you that certain scientific understanding and discoveries are not evidence of god. They only offer certain degrees of justification for belief in god. Your initial question has already been addressed by various religious philosophies. It’s literally the central theme of their creation accounts with the famous biblical account making a thorough exposition on the topic. I’m no biblical scholar but as I understand it God made humans and earth the focal point of his vast creation, and how creation was possible despite the insurmountable odds against it would logically imply it is intentional rather than accidental. This corresponds to scientific idea known as the Anthropic principle which is most compatible with the idea of a creator. It is used to support the view that humans are not unremarkable and insignificant against the vastness of the universe but the exact opposite. So what you were initially claiming to be an argument against an intelligent creator is actually the central idea theists use to logically argue for the existence of god and justify their feeling of being the center of creation lol
Mariya Takeuchi Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 I thought this was going to be about Madonna
Samsara Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 8 minutes ago, BadMonster said: the odds of your god existing after the existence of hundreds/thousands of other gods that humans came up with has been debunked is pretty close to zero, cuz the current gods are as much a fabrication by individuals/prophets without proof as the other gods that others before them came up with What you’re trying to “debunk” is polytheism not monotheism. Monotheistic arguments for god are basically foolproof. They address the issue of infinite regress, creation ex nihilo, etc., and is being constantly updated based on current scientific orthodoxy.
Samsara Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 Just now, BadMonster said: No, what I'm saying is that since the existence of hundreds or thousands of gods throughout history have been debunked, it's almost certain that the current ones don't exist either. God of thunder? Doesn't exist, there's a scientific/natural explanation now, so on, so on. We haven't found the explanation for our/the universe's origin yet, so now they're attributing that to a god, but it's almost certain and way more likely there's a scientific explanation for that as well. Gods are thought up to explain things cuz humans want to be in control and if they are not, it must be cuz someone else is in control and wants to teach them something, or test them, or whatever, and there's a purpose to it cuz imagine if things are random. After all the gods that have been debunked, it's safe to assume there is no god. That's way more likely than there being a god You’re exclusively alluding to polytheism exactly which is mostly debunked, I agree. The monotheistic god, however, is a completely different order of being than the gods you’ve just described
Literature Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 3 hours ago, Miichael said: I asked you for the “intellectual strength” of your argument, and you sent me a video of a man giving his opinion. Not a surprise you were unable to fulfil my request If you don’t want to put effort into watching the video thats your prerogative, but at least have enough shame to not speak when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Literature Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 3 hours ago, Samsara said: You’re exclusively alluding to polytheism exactly which is mostly debunked, I agree. The monotheistic god, however, is a completely different order of being than the gods you’ve just described This exactly.
Abracadabra Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 18 minutes ago, Literature said: If you don’t want to put effort into watching the video thats your prerogative, but at least have enough shame to not speak when you don’t know what you’re talking about. A cute attempt at deflection
Literature Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 Just now, Miichael said: A cute attempt at deflection You asked me for my argument. I linked a video succinctly explaining three distinct arguments for the existence of a creator. Based on your response it seems you didn’t even bother watching it. If you didn’t watch it, why would you even comment. I don’t get it.
Pendulum Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 This is the reason we rest on a Sunday. God was working overtime creating those beautiful creatures a well deserved rest for capital H I M and for us
Recommended Posts