Atheists and God

[gerobbins]

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.

And your point is? You did not answer the question.

 

[TEXASBULL]

Quick question, why is it whenever I question something on this forum, its brought back with sarcasm?

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

Sorry, but the puddle analogy is a dumb analogy

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

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.)




It did not 'just happen' as you put it. The initial conditions at the beginning (if there was one) of the universe had to right to get our current results.
A god or 'deity' may have helped, but the necessity for such a being has not been shown or evidenced by any empirical data.

And you know this how?

From astrophysicists, cosmologists and xenobiologists.

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.

Yes, isn't it amazing how scientist are continually expanding our knowledge of the Universe.
It would be an act of unmitigated willful ignorance to dismiss findings that disagreed with a certain theology simply because they clashed with ones preconceived beliefs.

BTW, you did not address the 'odds' factor here that you have been clinging to.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

Explain how putting the burden of proof on the claimant is "a dumb theory".
Is it because you do not wish to have that burden?

For clarification, Bertrand Russell coined the 'theory' with the following.....

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[gerobbins]

Explain how putting the burden of proof on the claimant is "a dumb theory".
Is it because you do not wish to have that burden?

For clarification, Bertrand Russell coined the 'theory' with the following.....

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Yea, I see the point in what they are trying to say. However, lets take out the Bible, religion and even God and I mean God in the sense of God in the Bible.

Let's look at the universe from a point of view from an Intelligent creator.
For example, everything has to be created from something, from machines to humans beings.

We all know that we did not just happened, we know that machines did not just happen. We don't know that the universe just happened, we can't, we were not there.

So who's to say that the universe was not created by a higher intelligence? (again I am keeping the God of the Bible out of this)

This is what I am asking? who do we know or not know? From my perspective, I just can't see how it just happened. I feel it must have been created by someone or something.

I could say something stupid like Stonehenge just happened and it was not created. No one know who built it and why. We were not there to see it built so how do we know it did not just happen? Maybe it was a natural phenomenon. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the same thing applies to the universe, how do we know it just happened?

So, lets think of a higher intelligence beyond our own and ask, could the universe been created by that?

And lets not get sarcastic as I took "God" out of the equation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yea, I see the point in what they are trying to say. However, lets take out the Bible, religion and even God and I mean God in the sense of God in the Bible.

Let's look at the universe from a point of view from an Intelligent creator.
For example, everything has to be created from something, from machines to humans beings.

We all know that we did not just happened, we know that machines did not just happen. We don't know that the universe just happened, we can't, we were not there.

So who's to say that the universe was not created by a higher intelligence? (again I am keeping the God of the Bible out of this)

This is what I am asking? who do we know or not know? From my perspective, I just can't see how it just happened. I feel it must have been created by someone or something.

I could say something stupid like Stonehenge just happened and it was not created. No one know who built it and why. We were not there to see it built so how do we know it did not just happen? Maybe it was a natural phenomenon. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the same thing applies to the universe, how do we know it just happened?

So, lets think of a higher intelligence beyond our own and ask, could the universe been created by that?

And lets not get sarcastic as I took "God" out of the equation.

No, you did not take "God" out of the equation. You are still speculating on a higher intelligence that has not been objectively evidenced.

We know Stonehenge is man-made due to objective evidence. we also know Rainbow Bridge in Utah is naturaly formed without human endeavor for the same reason.

No one is saying anything "just happened". There is a natural progression to all things.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, your comments are just an opinion as well. We can both argue till we are blue in the face and it will not get us anywhere. "Convince someone against their will and they will be of the same opinion still" So, agree to disagree. Plain and simple. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

Then why are you on a Religious Discussion forum?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yea, I see the point in what they are trying to say. However, lets take out the Bible, religion and even God and I mean God in the sense of God in the Bible.

Let's look at the universe from a point of view from an Intelligent creator.
For example, everything has to be created from something, from machines to humans beings.

That's a false dichotomy. Unless you can clearly demonstrate that everything that currently exists in the Universe required creation - including the mass that comprises everything.

We all know that we did not just happened, we know that machines did not just happen. We don't know that the universe just happened, we can't, we were not there.

So who's to say that the universe was not created by a higher intelligence? (again I am keeping the God of the Bible out of this)

Argument from incredulity. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it is correct to assert an untestable, unproven assertion in it's place.

This is what I am asking? who do we know or not know? From my perspective, I just can't see how it just happened. I feel it must have been created by someone or something.

What you feel has no bearing on what actually does happen. In ancient Greece, people could not understand how lightning bolts hit the ground without some ancient God hurling them. People could not understand how the sun appeared to be moving in the sky unless the sun itself was orbiting the earth.

I could say something stupid like Stonehenge just happened and it was not created. No one know who built it and why. We were not there to see it built so how do we know it did not just happen? Maybe it was a natural phenomenon. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the same thing applies to the universe, how do we know it just happened?

Because those are entirely different suggestions. We already know that no (or, at lest, very few) natural phenomena could produce stonehenge. We also have historical records of various pagan tribes conducting worship and rituals in that area and around the time that stonehenge was built.

The Universe bears no such identifying characteristics. We already know the physical method by which the known Universe began, and it did not require design, so why assert a designer?

So, lets think of a higher intelligence beyond our own and ask, could the universe been created by that?

Of course it could have. But then the Universe could also have been created last weekened by a giant pink elephant named Gerald, and all of our memories before then were just implanted into our heads by his magical golden trunk.

Any number of infinite possibilities could have been responsible for the creation or formation of the Universe as we know it. The real question is: which one is actually correct? So far, God has not been necessary on any level to explain anything about the observable Universe and it's origin, so why should anyone conclude God's existence or hand in said creation on any basis other than pure faith or delusion?

And lets not get sarcastic as I took "God" out of the equation.

No you didn't, you just relabelled God.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Yea, I see the point in what they are trying to say. However, lets take out the Bible, religion and even God and I mean God in the sense of God in the Bible.

Let's look at the universe from a point of view from an Intelligent creator.
For example, everything has to be created from something, from machines to humans beings.

We all know that we did not just happened, we know that machines did not just happen. We don't know that the universe just happened, we can't, we were not there.

So who's to say that the universe was not created by a higher intelligence? (again I am keeping the God of the Bible out of this)

This is what I am asking? who do we know or not know? From my perspective, I just can't see how it just happened. I feel it must have been created by someone or something.

I could say something stupid like Stonehenge just happened and it was not created. No one know who built it and why. We were not there to see it built so how do we know it did not just happen? Maybe it was a natural phenomenon. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the same thing applies to the universe, how do we know it just happened?

So, lets think of a higher intelligence beyond our own and ask, could the universe been created by that?

And lets not get sarcastic as I took "God" out of the equation.

Who or what created the higher intelligence that created the universe?

 

[gerobbins]

That's a false dichotomy. Unless you can clearly demonstrate that everything that currently exists in the Universe required creation - including the mass that comprises everything.


Argument from incredulity. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean it is correct to assert an untestable, unproven assertion in it's place.


What you feel has no bearing on what actually does happen. In ancient Greece, people could not understand how lightning bolts hit the ground without some ancient God hurling them. People could not understand how the sun appeared to be moving in the sky unless the sun itself was orbiting the earth.


Because those are entirely different suggestions. We already know that no (or, at lest, very few) natural phenomena could produce stonehenge. We also have historical records of various pagan tribes conducting worship and rituals in that area and around the time that stonehenge was built.

The Universe bears no such identifying characteristics. We already know the physical method by which the known Universe began, and it did not require design, so why assert a designer?


Of course it could have. But then the Universe could also have been created last weekened by a giant pink elephant named Gerald, and all of our memories before then were just implanted into our heads by his magical golden trunk.

Any number of infinite possibilities could have been responsible for the creation or formation of the Universe as we know it. The real question is: which one is actually correct? So far, God has not been necessary on any level to explain anything about the observable Universe and it's origin, so why should anyone conclude God's existence or hand in said creation on any basis other than pure faith or delusion?


No you didn't, you just relabelled God.

No I did not relable whatsoever. You are all avoiding the question now. Try and not be close minded about this.

We as humans are not at the top of the food chain.

I took the biblical God out of the equation and asked if a higher intelligence could have created the universe. So?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I took the biblical God out of the equation and asked if a higher intelligence could have created the universe. So?

Could a higher intelligence been involved in the creation of the Universe? Yes.
Is such a creator necessary according to all known physics? No.

 

[gerobbins]

No, you did not take "God" out of the equation. You are still speculating on a higher intelligence that has not been objectively evidenced.

We know Stonehenge is man-made due to objective evidence. we also know Rainbow Bridge in Utah is naturaly formed without human endeavor for the same reason.

No one is saying anything "just happened". There is a natural progression to all things.

You are avoiding the question. And I said in my statement about stonehenge was a ridiculous one. However, we were not around to witness it being built. So how can we say with any certainty that is was man made? How do we know that it was not built by something else? We can only assume it was built by man and that is our arrogance coming into play there.

Aside from that, we can not just assume that the universe was not created by a supernatural being.

So I ask again, taking the biblical God out of the equation can you say with any degree of certianty that the universe was not created by a being on a higher evolutionary scale then us?

 

[gerobbins]

Could a higher intelligence been involved in the creation of the Universe? Yes.
Is such a creator necessary according to all known physics? No.

Thank You that is all I wanted to hear.

As for your second answer, how do you know that statement to be true as well?

 

[McBell]

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...

Yet you demand the same answer for creation?
We are asking the same question.
If you won't answer it, why does some one else have to?

 

[tumbleweed41]

As for your second answer, how do you know that statement to be true as well?

The laws of physics and quantum mechanics.

 

[tumbleweed41]

And I said in my statement about stonehenge was a ridiculous one. However, we were not around to witness it being built. So how can we say with any certainty that is was man made? How do we know that it was not built by something else? We can only assume it was built by man and that is our arrogance coming into play there.

As I said in my previous answer. We have objective evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No I did not relable whatsoever. You are all avoiding the question now. Try and not be close minded about this.

You tell me I'm ignoring the question while you fail to respond to all but one sentence of my post. That's hypocrisy for you.

We as humans are not at the top of the food chain.

I took the biblical God out of the equation and asked if a higher intelligence could have created the universe. So?

I already answered that question in the post. Want me to post it again, since you're apparently unable to read all but the last sentence of my post? Well, here it is:


Of course it could have. But then the Universe could also have been created last weekened by a giant pink elephant named Gerald, and all of our memories before then were just implanted into our heads by his magical golden trunk.

Any number of infinite possibilities could have been responsible for the creation or formation of the Universe as we know it. The real question is: which one is actually correct? So far, God has not been necessary on any level to explain anything about the observable Universe and it's origin, so why should anyone conclude God's existence or hand in said creation on any basis other than pure faith or delusion?


And do you mean to tell me that if someone had answered "yes" to your question, you wouldn't of immediately gone "well that intelligent agency is God!"?

 

[linwood]

I only read the first paragraph and can tell you already the article is crap.

Only a Christian could get that much wrong in two little sentences.

 

[Smoke]

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

Sorry, but the puddle analogy is a dumb analogy

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

Actually, they're both excellent analogies. The problem is that you don't like it.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

And your point is? You did not answer the question.

No one ever said your question had merit in the first place.

Edit: Also you are still failing the possibility vs probability thing.