My biggest question about atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
You're right. Just because life is here doesn't mean it is elsewhere.

But you guys cannot, CANNOT argue "We add God to the mix because its a possibility unless you have proven that possibility can not exist" and then, in the very next post, rule out the possibility of alien life without proving that possibility cannot exist. It is the height of hypocrisy.

Probability and the knowledge of earth's history tell me that the possibility of alien life is likely. I see no such evidence for God, except for a too-clever-by-half argument born of philosophy that can apply equally to an omnipotent and evil hobgoblin. They don't compare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
23-01-2014, 02:00 PM (This post was last modified: 23-01-2014 02:09 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 11:58 AM)anidominus Wrote:  If a unicorn pharted the universe then where did the unicorn come from? Either the unicorn is eternal or the unicorn came from somewhere.

Therefore,

Either "A God" of some kind exist and he is eternal, no "God" exists and the universe itself is eternal, or cause and effect happen infinitely. The latter being the most illogical of the three to me.

False trichotomy; you assume the options must fall within the frame of causality. As has been demonstrated by quantum mechanics, this is not a universe entirely operating under a deterministic framework. Therefore, to assume that the "beginning" of the universe (or if you want to go with the Big Bang Theory, the formation of the singularity which spawned the universe as we know it) MUST have a standard causal explanation is an arbitrary assertion.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
23-01-2014, 02:02 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 01:31 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  There is a difference between believing that something is true because it is likely and believing that something is true because we have evidence.

The evidence tells us how the earth was formed: what were the circumstances that led to it? Science (and not Genesis) actually has the answers to these and related questions.

The sun is a star. We know how stars form. We also know that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, each with more than 100 million stars.

From there we project: 100,000,000,000 galaxies x 100,000,000 stars = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.

At least.

What are the chances that our star is the only one of the 10 quintillion stars in the universe that is orbited by a planet that contains the necessary distance and composition to foster the development of life? I'd say pretty low.

Now, when you ask me whether I believe in alien life, I'm going to say yes. When you ask me whether I KNOW there is alien life, I would have to say no. I don't know it. I believe it, but my believe is based on probability combined with what science teaches us about how life developed on earth. I consider it unlikely that life is unique to earth. (Note: you did not ask about INTELLIGENT life, which would of necessity be more rare).

The question of God is not the same. Here you are asking us to believe without proof the existence of a transcendent being based on a philosophical argument. You call that being God. I call that being "hobgoblin." Yet there is as much evidence for God as there is for hobgoblin, or holy leprechaun, or flying spaghetti monster... because you drew his existence from philosophy and not from evidence, you are not entitled to assign any attributes to him. Attributes are known by evidence, not vice versa. Thus, the declaration by fiat that God is timeless and not bound by the physical laws of our universe does not follow from the evidence. It is ad hoc. It is god of the gaps. It is argument from ignorance. It is not science.

Honestly, I think you're playing word games when you compare believing in God to believing in alien life. The propositions are not analogous. Nice try, though.

Did we count those galaxies? Did we count those stars? Do we really know their number? Do we know the exact formula for life? Is it possible that in order to have life that the solar system has to be within 0.001% of the configuration of our solar system? Is it possible that life is a 1 in 10^2,546,442,145,244,531,456,123,457 possibility?

You keep saying you can't believe in something "without evidence", truth is, you've already done it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 01:39 PM)anidominus Wrote:  We add God to the mix because its a possibility unless you have proven that possibility can not exist.
Oh really ? you can prove that terminator cannot exist?

[Image: quote-occam-s-razor-no-more-things-shoul...372636.jpg]

Nuff said.. you're making a GIANT assumption that God exists... which is equivalent of presuming that superman exists.
Quote:Would you arrest a man for murder because you possibly had evidence that he committed one?
I won't arrest him but i sure would take him into custody for further investigation.
Quote:God has a personality.
Which God ? Consider and why your God and not other Gods?

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
Anidominus: You're equivocating, playing with the language.

I readily admit there is no "proof" of alien life. Columbus had no proof he could get to the east by traveling west. But he nearly succeeded (something got in his way, but in principle, he was right).

If the odds against life are as great as you assert, then it would be unreasonable to imagine that there is life elsewhere. But I suspect the odds are not as great as you imagine. Nonetheless, I readily admit that I could be wrong, and I'm not prepared to lose a moment's sleep over it.

And listen, just because you are ignorant about the number of stars in the universe does not give you the right to draw conclusions that rely on others to be just as ignorant. If you know nothing about the number of galaxies and the number of stars that are out there, butch up and read a book. Your ignorance should be mourned and corrected, not celebrated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
23-01-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
By the way, I miscalculated: The Milky Way Galaxy does not have 100 million stars. It has 100 THOUSAND million stars (where I come from, we call that a 100 billion. In ONE galaxy!) So my gross estimate of the number of stars in the universe, while not scientifically derived, was way off. Scientists estimate about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That's a trillion trillion.

Yeah, life only developed here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
23-01-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 10:34 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  As I understand it, science involves scientific facts (ie. objects fall at a certain speed and acceleration), scientific theories that constitute the widely accepted best explanation based on the scientific facts (ie. the theory of gravity) and hypotheses (theories that do no have sufficient support to be elevated to the stature of scientific theories). In this context, God would be classified as a hypothesis. The hypothesis of a creator God is based on the collection of scientific facts that exist in the universe (the existence of a universe, the evidence of the big bang, our observations of the cosmos, etc). It is a theory that explains the existence of anything at all.

Explanations involve the word "How".
Explanations show how something happened. How does a creator god create ? How does a creator god exist ?

Scientific theories that constitute the widely accepted best explanation are based on our observations, show the mechanism involved and using the model, we can make predictions about the future. These are useful theories.

My magical rock can perform every action that you say your god can perform.

You have your hypothesis.
What experiments do you have planned to test the hypothesis ?
What experiment would you plan to do to test my magical rock ?
My magical rock has all the traits of your god. All powerful, all knowing, all wise, yada yada yada.

Also if we go back in time to a point where human sexual conception (sperm & egg) isn't known of, is god an explanation for how a child is conceived within a woman's womb.
Some would say "We have evidence of the child. We have many facts about the child and the idea that a god created the child within the woman after a man lay with her is consistent with the evidence that we have"

Testing their idea that only a god can cause the conception of a child, the people gather many men and many women. The men lay with the women and only some become pregnant. That would seem to mean that a man laying with a woman ISN'T the cause of pregnancy. It is more consistent to the idea that a god and only a god, who is the creator of all things, is responsible for conception.

Let's change that. There is a magical rock in the village that fell from the sky.

Testing their idea that only the magical rock can cause the conception of a child, the people gather many men and many women. The men lay with the women and only some become pregnant. That would seem to mean that a man laying with a woman ISN'T the cause of pregnancy. It is more consistent to the idea that a magical rock and only a magical rock, who is the creator of all things, is responsible for conception.

God is an assertion, not an explanation. It doesn't explain anything more than my magical rock does.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
23-01-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 02:00 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 11:58 AM)anidominus Wrote:  If a unicorn pharted the universe then where did the unicorn come from? Either the unicorn is eternal or the unicorn came from somewhere.

Therefore,

Either "A God" of some kind exist and he is eternal, no "God" exists and the universe itself is eternal, or cause and effect happen infinitely. The latter being the most illogical of the three to me.

False trichotomy; you assume the options must fall within the frame of causality. As has been demonstrated by quantum mechanics, this is not a universe entirely operating under a deterministic framework. Therefore, to assume that the "beginning" of the universe (or if you want to go with the Big Bang Theory, the formation of the singularity which spawned the universe as we know it) MUST have a standard causal explanation is an arbitrary assertion.



Kitty Kitty you are slowing becoming my hero.
Heart

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
23-01-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 01:51 PM)anidominus Wrote:  Whether you says "aliens is possible" or "I believe in aliens" my reply is still the same.

No, it's not. One states a possibility based on the available evidence (the first one) and the other states a positive belief in something (the latter).


(23-01-2014 01:51 PM)anidominus Wrote:  So, you're telling me that we have verified a planet just like earth? Have we traveled there to make sure?

Just because life is here doesn't mean life is elsewhere.

It doesn't matter. I can still say "it's possible aliens could exist" without having to fly to other planets.


(23-01-2014 01:51 PM)anidominus Wrote:  Just because you reject evidence as supporting something doesn't mean it doesn't support it. What evidence support/says and doesn't say/support can be very subjective.

I'm going to need to you elaborate on that one. Where are you going with this? Give a piece of evidence that I reject that actually has support.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: My biggest question about atheism
(23-01-2014 02:35 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  By the way, I miscalculated: The Milky Way Galaxy does not have 100 million stars. It has 100 THOUSAND million stars (where I come from, we call that a 100 billion. In ONE galaxy!) So my gross estimate of the number of stars in the universe, while not scientifically derived, was way off. Scientists estimate about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
logically speaking what are the odds of life NOT exiting outside earth??

1 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.. LOL Laughat
Quote:Yeah, life only developed here.
Careful you might startle my inner creationist!

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: