Atheists and God

[gerobbins]

Calculating the odds of something happening AFTER it has happened is nothing more than an argument from incredulity fallacy.

You don't get it. If, and most likely there are millions upon millions of earth like planets. From their point of view they say it just happened. Everything fell into place perfectly without any type of engineering whatsoever. I doubt it. Everything is engineered whether it is man made or not.

 

[gerobbins]

Well, you certainly haven't shown that you understood the point.

Yes, I do, you just don't get it.

 

[Meow Mix]

You don't get it. If, and most likely there are millions upon millions of earth like planets. From their point of view they say it just happened. Everything fell into place perfectly without any type of engineering whatsoever. I doubt it. Everything is engineered whether it is man made or not.

What engineered your alleged engineer?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't get it. If, and most likely there are millions upon millions of earth like planets. From their point of view they say it just happened. Everything fell into place perfectly without any type of engineering whatsoever. I doubt it. Everything is engineered whether it is man made or not.

Again: does "everything" include God?

If yes, God was engineered.

If no, God is nothing.

If neither of these statements are true, then your claim that "everything is engineered" is false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What engineered your alleged engineer?

This is starting to remind me of the Martin Gardner article where he talked about paradoxes in set theory with the example of the robot who repairs all robots - and only those robots - that don't repair themselves.

 

[gerobbins]

You need to look at the big picture here.

Billions of other planets.
If I have a a few billion boxes of toothpicks.
The odds INCREASE that I will get repeats of my initial throw.

(BTW, most planets do not have the same conditions as earth. Odds are there are quite a few. But we have only verified one that is even close. And it does not rotate, so therefore has no axis. Nor is a moon or moons at any distance necessary for life.)

And you know this how? We have barely skimmed the surface of our own solar system let alone the galaxy. Why just a little over 30 years ago, they discovered the rings of Uranus and Jupiter and the largest moon of Pluto, Charon. Pluto has 3 known moons and there may be more once New Horizons reaches it in 2015

Ceres, was considered a planet as little as 130 years ago. Neptune’s rings were not discovered until 1989. Saturn was thought to only have around 19 moons as early as 1997 there are over 53. We are making more and more discoveries every day.

Back the 70s it was thought that Jupiter had only 13 moons, it has over 63 and counting.


The new planet Gliese 581g (easier to write then pronounce) is 3 times the size of earth and its year is only 37 days. As far as it not having a moon? We don’t know that yet.

Sedna, Makemake, Haumea Eris and other objects in the Kuiper belt were only discovered in the last decade. Pluto has been demoted to a dwarf planet because of all these recent discoveries,

Planets the size of earth are much harder to find, but they will find them.
There has only been 490 or so exoplanets discovered to date.

So to say that most planets don’t have the same conditions as earth is a bit futile. It’s only a matter of time. As you stated odds there are quite a few. I would say the odds are there a millions upon millions.

By the way if you want to see something cool. Look out at the southern sky around midnight. The brighest star in the sky is Jupiter. You can see the colours of the planet and the 4 largest moons. Of course you need a telescope, I look at it every night. Its amazing.

 

[McBell]

No I did not admit that at all. You misread it, I meant I see their argurments the same as they see mine.

yes, the same as yours:

"empty conjecture" and "weak suppositions".
​

So I did not misread it after all.
It is just not what you meant.
I can accept that.
So what did you mean when you said:

"empty conjecture" and "weak suppositions"​

You don't get it. If, and most likely there are millions upon millions of earth like planets. From their point of view they say it just happened. Everything fell into place perfectly without any type of engineering whatsoever. I doubt it. Everything is engineered whether it is man made or not.

Yes I do get it.
Calculating the odds of something happening after that something has happened and using those odds as "proof" that it could not happen is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity fallacy.

It is akin to claiming that the person who won the lottery could not have won the lottery because the odds of that particular person winning that particular lottery on that particular day are so astronomically high.

 

[Magic Man]

You don't get it.

The problem is not that we don't get it. The problem is that you don't get it.

If, and most likely there are millions upon millions of earth like planets. From their point of view they say it just happened. Everything fell into place perfectly without any type of engineering whatsoever. I doubt it. Everything is engineered whether it is man made or not.

Maybe you didn't understand the puddle analogy well enough. From a puddle's perspective, the hole it finds itself in is perfectly made for it, yet no intelligent creator made that hole for that puddle.

You can doubt it all you want, but there is nothing other than your desire for it to be so that indicates that the universe was designed.

And, as has been brought up many times now, if everything is engineered, what engineered God? And then what engineered the thing that engineered God? And so on. And if you go back to your answer that maybe god's just eternal, then you have to realize that the universe is just as likely to be eternal as God is.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, I do, you just don't get it.

Sorry, but "I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't work here. No, I get it, which is why I can say with supreme confidence that you have yet to show that you get it. Your response to the analogy clearly showed either a complete lack of understanding or at the very least a misunderstanding.

 

[Magic Man]

And you know this how? We have barely skimmed the surface of our own solar system let alone the galaxy. Why just a little over 30 years ago, they discovered the rings of Uranus and Jupiter and the largest moon of Pluto, Charon. Pluto has 3 known moons and there may be more once New Horizons reaches it in 2015

Ceres, was considered a planet as little as 130 years ago. Neptune’s rings were not discovered until 1989. Saturn was thought to only have around 19 moons as early as 1997 there are over 53. We are making more and more discoveries every day.

Back the 70s it was thought that Jupiter had only 13 moons, it has over 63 and counting.


The new planet Gliese 581g (easier to write then pronounce) is 3 times the size of earth and its year is only 37 days. As far as it not having a moon? We don’t know that yet.

Sedna, Makemake, Haumea Eris and other objects in the Kuiper belt were only discovered in the last decade. Pluto has been demoted to a dwarf planet because of all these recent discoveries,

Planets the size of earth are much harder to find, but they will find them.
There has only been 490 or so exoplanets discovered to date.

So to say that most planets don’t have the same conditions as earth is a bit futile. It’s only a matter of time. As you stated odds there are quite a few. I would say the odds are there a millions upon millions.

By the way if you want to see something cool. Look out at the southern sky around midnight. The brighest star in the sky is Jupiter. You can see the colours of the planet and the 4 largest moons. Of course you need a telescope, I look at it every night. Its amazing.

Wow, talk about going off on a tangent after completely missing the point of the post being referenced. His point was that with more planets, you get a higher chance of getting one with conditions just right for life, just like the more times you dump out the box of toothpicks, the more likely you are to get a certain pattern.

So, yes, there are most likely many, many planets that have conditions similar to Earth, but we already know that there are many more that don't have those conditions. We already know that most planets don't have similar conditions. But that is all completely beside the real point of contention here. It really doesn't matter how many planets contain life. What matters is that to have the right conditions does not require an intelligent creator, regardless of whether you can wrap your brain around that concept.

 

[gerobbins]

yes, the same as yours:

"empty conjecture" and "weak suppositions".
​

So I did not misread it after all.
It is just not what you meant.
I can accept that.
So what did you mean when you said:

"empty conjecture" and "weak suppositions"
​

Yes I do get it.
Calculating the odds of something happening after that something has happened and using those odds as "proof" that it could not happen is nothing more than an appeal to incredulity fallacy.

It is akin to claiming that the person who won the lottery could not have won the lottery because the odds of that particular person winning that particular lottery on that particular day are so astronomically high.

How is that akin to someone winning the lottery? And it nothing to do with an appeal to ignorance as you so eloquently put it.

The teacup theory is a dumb theroy, Richard Dawkins tried this same anaolgy and it made him sound like an ignorant fool.

 

[gerobbins]

The problem is not that we don't get it. The problem is that you don't get it.



Maybe you didn't understand the puddle analogy well enough. From a puddle's perspective, the hole it finds itself in is perfectly made for it, yet no intelligent creator made that hole for that puddle.

You can doubt it all you want, but there is nothing other than your desire for it to be so that indicates that the universe was designed.

And, as has been brought up many times now, if everything is engineered, what engineered God? And then what engineered the thing that engineered God? And so on. And if you go back to your answer that maybe god's just eternal, then you have to realize that the universe is just as likely to be eternal as God is.

No the problem is, is that you don't get it. Not at all.

 

[gerobbins]

The problem is not that we don't get it. The problem is that you don't get it.



Maybe you didn't understand the puddle analogy well enough. From a puddle's perspective, the hole it finds itself in is perfectly made for it, yet no intelligent creator made that hole for that puddle.

You can doubt it all you want, but there is nothing other than your desire for it to be so that indicates that the universe was designed.

And, as has been brought up many times now, if everything is engineered, what engineered God? And then what engineered the thing that engineered God? And so on. And if you go back to your answer that maybe god's just eternal, then you have to realize that the universe is just as likely to be eternal as God is.

Sorry, but the puddle analogy is a dumb analogy. I have made many a hole for puddles haven't you?

 

[gerobbins]

Wow, talk about going off on a tangent after completely missing the point of the post being referenced. His point was that with more planets, you get a higher chance of getting one with conditions just right for life, just like the more times you dump out the box of toothpicks, the more likely you are to get a certain pattern.

So, yes, there are most likely many, many planets that have conditions similar to Earth, but we already know that there are many more that don't have those conditions. We already know that most planets don't have similar conditions. But that is all completely beside the real point of contention here. It really doesn't matter how many planets contain life. What matters is that to have the right conditions does not require an intelligent creator, regardless of whether you can wrap your brain around that concept.

Again you don't get the point. Explain to me how our planet with all its complexities ( the moon, the axis, the distance from the sun etc...) could have just happened?
If that is the case then the odds of other planets having the same condtions for life are astronomical. Things just don't happen. Open your mind.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Again you don't get the point. Explain to me how our planet with all its complexities ( the moon, the axis, the distance from the sun etc...) could have just happened?
If that is the case then the odds of other planets having the same condtions for life are astronomical. Things just don't happen. Open your mind.

Ah a classic case of mistaking probability and possibility. Ladies and gentlemen, we can rebuild gerobbins...we have the technology.

The mathmatical probability that you will wear a specific set of clothes of a specific color with all other accompanying objects on your person in a specific place leaving at a specific time to meet a specific friend that you despite all probability against it know to have a specific conversation using specific words in a specific language while eating at a specific restaurant with a specific meal for each person waiting on by a speci....well we see where this is going and that is just SOME of the details to consider. Anyway..that such would happen has a high degree of mathematical improbability. Yet it happens daily...tons of times with different people. Gasp! It must be the work of mystical forces! Truely like is a jrpg waiting to happen at any moment.

 

[McBell]

How is that akin to someone winning the lottery? And it nothing to do with an appeal to ignorance as you so eloquently put it.

Seems to me that your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
I did not say it was akin to winning the lottery.
i said it was akin to CLAIMING that someone who won the lottery could not have won the lottery because the odds of the winner winning the lottery are so astronomical.

Now if you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference, then it is on you, not me.

The teacup theory is a dumb theroy, Richard Dawkins tried this same anaolgy and it made him sound like an ignorant fool.

Ah.
I understand now.
YOUR inability to understand means that THEY are the fool.
Gotcha.

 

[McBell]

Again you don't get the point. Explain to me how our planet with all its complexities ( the moon, the axis, the distance from the sun etc...) could have just happened?

I will right after you explain how your god, with all it's complexities, could have just happened.

Take your time.

 

[HonestJoe]

Again you don't get the point. Explain to me how our planet with all its complexities ( the moon, the axis, the distance from the sun etc...) could have just happened?

Exactly the same way it did for every other planet. There isn't really anything special about Earth. It isn't more complex and doesn't have more features than any other. Every planet has the same set of characteristics, just set differently. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable ideas about how stars and planets form which explain this variety.

If that is the case then the odds of other planets having the same condtions for life are astronomical.

But so is the number of planets (the clue is in the word). If the chances of a planet forming is a specific manner (such as capable of supporting life) were 1 in a billion but there were 100 billion planets, there would naturally be around 100 planets which meet that combination of conditions (I'm not saying those are the exact numbers but it is of that scale).

Given the scale of the entire universe, it would be more amazing for no planet anywhere to naturally develop in a way that it could support life.

 

[gerobbins]

Seems to me that your reading comprehension skills are seriously lacking.
I did not say it was akin to winning the lottery.
i said it was akin to CLAIMING that someone who won the lottery could not have won the lottery because the odds of the winner winning the lottery are so astronomical.

Now if you are unable or unwilling to understand the difference, then it is on you, not me.


Ah.
I understand now.
YOUR inability to understand means that THEY are the fool.
Gotcha.

No I understand. Quick question, why is it whenever I question something on this forum, its brought back with sarcasm?

 

[gerobbins]

I will right after you explain how your god, with all it's complexities, could have just happened.

Take your time.

Well, since you know that question is hard or impossible to answer, I am going back to my first question. Which you did not answer. And I am waiting for an answer...

Is your sarcasm a matter of arrogance or ignorance or are you just purposely obtuse?