Taylucifer Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 not Christians being typical Christians in this thread annoying asf
Aston Martin Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 13 hours ago, Samsara said: 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. No, I'm saying that the universe is not fine tuned to life, and the fact that there is life on Earth despite the tiny probabilities of it happening isn't really remarkable once you realize the full size of the universe. 13 hours ago, Samsara said: Logical arguments are formulated based on what we know not what we don’t know otherwise it’s fallacious. You say this while advocating for the existence of a creator that there is no evidence for lol 13 hours ago, Samsara said: 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. You're contradicting yourself here. You say that there is no scientific evidence for a monotheistic god but that science also justifies belief in one? That makes no sense. The amount of geological, geographical, chemical, and biological evidence that contradicts many biblical claims doesn't offer degrees of justification for a belief in god, but the exact opposite. 13 hours ago, Samsara said: 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. The biblical creation you mention here is not supported by evidence. That myth states that the universe was created in 7 days (evidence points to the universe being between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years old) that the earth is 6,000 years old (evidence points to it being over 4 billion years old). It says nothing of the five previous mass extinction events that occurred before the current rise of mammals, it says nothing about the actual first forms of life (archaebacteria), it saying nothing about dinosaurs, evolution, or microscopic organisms. And it's not even original either, it was lifted from earlier creation myths from Mesopotamia. 13 hours ago, Samsara said: I’m no biblical scholar but as I understand it God made humans and earth the focal point of his vast creation The Earth isn't even the focal point of the Solar System, let alone the focal point of the entire universe. Homo sapien sapiens (which is our species of human, there have been others such as Homo Floresiensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis that we have fossil evidence of) have existed for about 160,000 years, which is 0.0000036% of the estimated age of the Earth. So I wouldn't say that humans are even the focal point of the Earth when you take its entire history into account. While we have developed technology that could affect the planet as a whole (relatively recently), we still live at the mercy or weather and geological events that we do not have control over. 13 hours ago, Samsara said: and how creation was possible despite the insurmountable odds against it would logically imply it is intentional rather than accidental. There's no "insurmountable odds" against the creation of life if there were to be a creator. What makes the odds of life so small is that the universe is so hostile to it. Any creator that wanted to create life in its image would not stick it in a universe (that it also supposedly created) that is so hostile to life's existence. 13 hours ago, Samsara said: This corresponds to scientific idea known as the Anthropic principle which is most compatible with the idea of a creator. If you're going to try to use the Anthropic principle to justify creation, then you also have to use it to explain why a vast majority of the rest of the universe is not fine-tuned to life. Surrounding one tiny haven of life (Earth) around a vast universe that is hostile to it points to a statistical fluctuation as opposed to a deliberate action (which would be a very stupid one at that. No intelligent being would stick a creation that they supposedly love so much within a sea of danger). 13 hours ago, Samsara said: It is used to support the view that humans are not unremarkable and insignificant against the vastness of the universe but the exact opposite. This can be argued away with Douglas Adams' metaphor of a talking puddle: the puddle thinks that the depression in which it sits was designed for itself, since the fit is so exact; of course, as a liquid, the puddle has flowed (evolved) into the only possible shape without an intelligent guide. Just because we live in the universe does not mean that it was designed for us (and again, the hostile conditions for life outside of this planet point to it not being designed by some creator for us). 13 hours ago, Samsara said: 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 Then theists are lying to themselves because we are objectively not at the center of universe and have no effect on it outside of the scope of our planet (and while we may have sent spacecraft to other celestial bodies outside of our own, we lack the ability to control or effect any ongoing events in our solar system at a massive scale.
Sergi91 Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 Not y’all getting triggered by the creator post
-brian Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, Aston Martin said: No, I'm saying that the universe is not fine tuned to life, and the fact that there is life on Earth despite the tiny probabilities of it happening isn't really remarkable once you realize the full size of the universe. You say this while advocating for the existence of a creator that there is no evidence for lol You're contradicting yourself here. You say that there is no scientific evidence for a monotheistic god but that science also justifies belief in one? That makes no sense. The amount of geological, geographical, chemical, and biological evidence that contradicts many biblical claims doesn't offer degrees of justification for a belief in god, but the exact opposite. The biblical creation you mention here is not supported by evidence. That myth states that the universe was created in 7 days (evidence points to the universe being between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years old) that the earth is 6,000 years old (evidence points to it being over 4 billion years old). It says nothing of the five previous mass extinction events that occurred before the current rise of mammals, it says nothing about the actual first forms of life (archaebacteria), it saying nothing about dinosaurs, evolution, or microscopic organisms. And it's not even original either, it was lifted from earlier creation myths from Mesopotamia. The Earth isn't even the focal point of the Solar System, let alone the focal point of the entire universe. Homo sapien sapiens (which is our species of human, there have been others such as Homo Floresiensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis that we have fossil evidence of) have existed for about 160,000 years, which is 0.0000036% of the estimated age of the Earth. So I wouldn't say that humans are even the focal point of the Earth when you take its entire history into account. While we have developed technology that could affect the planet as a whole (relatively recently), we still live at the mercy or weather and geological events that we do not have control over. There's no "insurmountable odds" against the creation of life if there were to be a creator. What makes the odds of life so small is that the universe is so hostile to it. Any creator that wanted to create life in its image would not stick it in a universe (that it also supposedly created) that is so hostile to life's existence. If you're going to try to use the Anthropic principle to justify creation, then you also have to use it to explain why a vast majority of the rest of the universe is not fine-tuned to life. Surrounding one tiny haven of life (Earth) around a vast universe that is hostile to it points to a statistical fluctuation as opposed to a deliberate action (which would be a very stupid one at that. No intelligent being would stick a creation that they supposedly love so much within a sea of danger). This can be argued away with Douglas Adams' metaphor of a talking puddle: the puddle thinks that the depression in which it sits was designed for itself, since the fit is so exact; of course, as a liquid, the puddle has flowed (evolved) into the only possible shape without an intelligent guide. Just because we live in the universe does not mean that it was designed for us (and again, the hostile conditions for life outside of this planet point to it not being designed by some creator for us). Then theists are lying to themselves because we are objectively not at the center of universe and have no effect on it outside of the scope of our planet (and while we may have sent spacecraft to other celestial bodies outside of our own, we lack the ability to control or effect any ongoing events in our solar system at a massive scale. Wow Edited January 4, 2023 by -brian
Samsara Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 7 hours ago, Aston Martin said: No, I'm saying that the universe is not fine tuned to life, and the fact that there is life on Earth despite the tiny probabilities of it happening isn't really remarkable once you realize the full size of the universe. You say this while advocating for the existence of a creator that there is no evidence for lol You're contradicting yourself here. You say that there is no scientific evidence for a monotheistic god but that science also justifies belief in one? That makes no sense. The amount of geological, geographical, chemical, and biological evidence that contradicts many biblical claims doesn't offer degrees of justification for a belief in god, but the exact opposite. The biblical creation you mention here is not supported by evidence. That myth states that the universe was created in 7 days (evidence points to the universe being between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years old) that the earth is 6,000 years old (evidence points to it being over 4 billion years old). It says nothing of the five previous mass extinction events that occurred before the current rise of mammals, it says nothing about the actual first forms of life (archaebacteria), it saying nothing about dinosaurs, evolution, or microscopic organisms. And it's not even original either, it was lifted from earlier creation myths from Mesopotamia. The Earth isn't even the focal point of the Solar System, let alone the focal point of the entire universe. Homo sapien sapiens (which is our species of human, there have been others such as Homo Floresiensis, Homo Neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis that we have fossil evidence of) have existed for about 160,000 years, which is 0.0000036% of the estimated age of the Earth. So I wouldn't say that humans are even the focal point of the Earth when you take its entire history into account. While we have developed technology that could affect the planet as a whole (relatively recently), we still live at the mercy or weather and geological events that we do not have control over. There's no "insurmountable odds" against the creation of life if there were to be a creator. What makes the odds of life so small is that the universe is so hostile to it. Any creator that wanted to create life in its image would not stick it in a universe (that it also supposedly created) that is so hostile to life's existence. If you're going to try to use the Anthropic principle to justify creation, then you also have to use it to explain why a vast majority of the rest of the universe is not fine-tuned to life. Surrounding one tiny haven of life (Earth) around a vast universe that is hostile to it points to a statistical fluctuation as opposed to a deliberate action (which would be a very stupid one at that. No intelligent being would stick a creation that they supposedly love so much within a sea of danger). This can be argued away with Douglas Adams' metaphor of a talking puddle: the puddle thinks that the depression in which it sits was designed for itself, since the fit is so exact; of course, as a liquid, the puddle has flowed (evolved) into the only possible shape without an intelligent guide. Just because we live in the universe does not mean that it was designed for us (and again, the hostile conditions for life outside of this planet point to it not being designed by some creator for us). Then theists are lying to themselves because we are objectively not at the center of universe and have no effect on it outside of the scope of our planet (and while we may have sent spacecraft to other celestial bodies outside of our own, we lack the ability to control or effect any ongoing events in our solar system at a massive scale. 1. The universe is fine-tuned for life or else we wouldn’t exist. This is basically a scientific orthodoxy or the generally accepted view in science. We know that the universe is capable of supporting life as the laws of physics are tuned so specifically that even the smallest change to the properties of electron wouldn’t allow for the existence of the universe in the first place. In universes where fine-tuning is off, no conscious beings could arise to ask the question if and why the universe is fine-tuned. It’s not that universe is fine-tuned or not, but the debate has shifted already to HOW/WHY it is fine-tuned with various ideas having been proposed ranging from theoretical (multiverse), to atheist (pure coincidence), to religious (designer). 2. Logical arguments are either sound or fallacious. Sound logic reasons with true premises to draw conclusions. A fallacy starts with wrong premises or appeals to the unknown to arrive at its desired conclusions. The classical theistic arguments and the arguments by alien believers are both types of deductive reasoning which use logical assumptions, but only the latter is fallacious as it tries to infer the existence of something based on the unknown. Like I said, it’s terrible reasoning to assume the existence of aliens based solely on the size of the universe and number of stars and galaxies in it. Only the existence of physical constants, repeatable/reproducible natural events and objects with measurable astrodynamic properties like black holes, stars, planets and the like can be predicted to exist using mathematical calculations which is also a type of deductive reasoning, and not the existence of any biological thing especially if you have no available data to work with. As I previously said to another member, the monotheist god or god of classical theism is not a material being as understood by polytheists but an entirely different order of being (with transcendental properties) whose existence can only be inferred using deduction or pure reasoning. You use INDUCTION (observation) to ascertain biological existence. 3. Science is used to justify all kinds of philosophical view and belief. Atheism, theism, afterlife, eternal cessation, materialism, dualism, determinism, virtually all —isms are philosophical beliefs shaped and justified by particular understanding or interpretations of science. Science says nothing beyond verifiable results in response to testing of a physical hypothesis. It is a tool used to understand the laws and mechanisms of the universe. And its findings can be made to support, justify or undermine any belief based on one’s ability to interpret and reason, and personal perspective and biases. Likewise, who said religion is not up for interpretation? Religion itself is interpretive. What you think science is contradicting is biblical literalism—a modern interpretation of the bible. St. Augustine, one of the core architects of Christianity, was one of the earliest proponents of evolution. So was heliocentrism pioneered by Galileo, both of which remained faithful and never reckoned their discoveries/ideas contradicting the scripture. 4. The bible is a theological book, not a science or history journal, nor was it even viewed as one by the Church. Many things were never mentioned in it not even those that people knew existed in the day. From a secular perspective, the bible is a literary text that uses various metaphors and figures of speech. Half of it was even written as poetry. It’s never meant to be taken literally. 5. Earth being the focal point is a religious notion not a scientific one. It means it is unique and special because it’s the only place in the cosmos that god chose to place his valuable creation. And god made it so that humans would feel awe, insignificance and helplessness without god, and know the limit of their understanding. Again, the reasoning is religious/theological drawn from scripture while you are imposing your own intent to god.
katara Posted January 4, 2023 Posted January 4, 2023 These Essays over a made up man living in the sky from 2000 years ago
Edit0rz Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 Yaaaas sky Daddy, thank you for the beautiful....sea slug and mosquitos, and HIV and Cancer and poverty, Paedophile preist, Inquisition... If God is real he has done a shitty job because all the worst people are religious.
Vertigo Stick Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 What if god was one of us? Just a *** on ATRL debating whether or not s/he/they is real
manwhore Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 On 1/2/2023 at 8:44 PM, Mouchette said: I bet it suck dick good Beastiality is illegal and just as bad as PDF file stuff. Delete this. Also can you imagine what the living creatures look like on/within the sun if the creatures living in water are this insanely creep!!? 🥵
Recommended Posts