By weeping, you mean sniggering and giggling?
Because if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it
- Thread starter Elf Grinder 3000
- Start date
By weeping, you mean sniggering and giggling?
Because if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Yes, as already pointed out, they are weeping, not because your posts prove them wrong, but because of sadness that so few posts can get so much so very wrong. In fact, these are the same old "arguments" that are periodically posted here, most often as part of an assignment to students by religious schools. Others here have already replied on a more factual level, but frankly I don't have the time or desire to re-iterate corrections to your mis-understandings that I have already posted many times in other threads. If you do wish to find out the actual facts, you can look them up in any of a number of science sites on the web, and/or read the many other threads on these topics that have been posted here.
At some point, I suspect that you will grow tired of being deceived and lied to by the fundamentalist sites and leaders who know the real facts, but who intentionally distort them so as to manipulate people such as yourself. When you do, you will find that there are many sources out there from which you can learn the real scientific facts, and thus think for yourself what they mean.
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
My hopes of being the next Miss America are pretty dead.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Astreja
Springy Goddess
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,513
I'm weeping because the username "Elf Grinder 3000" reminds Me of the combination ham radio, book-straightener and barbecue lighter I got from the gnomes at Mount Nevermind one Yule. The grilled ham was delicious, although it tasted slightly of charred books.
So, EG3K, where *is* this alleged god of yours? We haven't contacted any extraterrestrials, but neither have we contacted the supposed creative deity either. Until and unless the blighter bothers to shows up, I say we just continue on as if it isn't there.
So, EG3K, where *is* this alleged god of yours? We haven't contacted any extraterrestrials, but neither have we contacted the supposed creative deity either. Until and unless the blighter bothers to shows up, I say we just continue on as if it isn't there.
I interpret the Anthropic Principle in its 'weak' sense. The 'Anthropic Principle' to me is the claim that our sample set is too small to make a valid statistical analysis.
There is only one planet currently observable where we have strong evidence that life exists. Hence, there is no statistical way to evaluate whether such an event is probable or not, with or without the existence of Providence. Obviously, we can exclude the impossibility of life existing because life has been observed. However, statements about 'probability' are meaningless.
There is only one region of the visible universe where we can determine fundamental constants of physical law. Therefore, we can't make a statistical analysis of whether those constants are probable or not.
The constants we observe happen to be consistent with the existence of our type of life. We have observed our type of life to exist, so it makes perfect sense that the constants are consistent with it. However, we have no other constants and no other form of life to compare. So statements about the 'probability' of these constants, with or without Providence, are nonsense.
The 'multiverse' models constitute claims that the sample set is much larger than just the obviously visible universe. The claim is made that there are other regions of space, designated 'other universes', which can be indirectly observed through careful observations of the universe. So according to this view, we can make a very rough estimate of the probability of the conditions of life occurring elsewhere in the 'multiverse'. According to this hypothesis, the estimated probability is high that there are other places where there is life somewhat like ours in some way.
I don not have enough information to make even an interesting conjecture whether the 'multiverse' models are right or not. However, I find this conjecture interesting. I think this conjecture is worth some money and some resources investigating further. Others may disagree. However, I think it is irrelevant to whether there is a Providence or not.
The OP apparently isn't a Deist in the full, philosophical definition of the word. A Deist can believe in a Deity that created the universe, but does not believe in Deity that cares about mankind. The OP does not provide any evidence that the Great Designer cares about mankind. Note that the OP says God whether than Providence. The commonly accepted difference in meaning is that Providence does not have to have motivations consistent with any human system of morality. The actions of Providence does not have to be consistent with any description in the Bible or any other scripture.
Whether life is 'probable' or not, there is nothing that supports either a Loving God or a Biblical God (may they never meet). So the OP may have presented a hypothesis slightly too strong for the Anthropic Principle.
At any rate, I still think the Anthropic Principle is merely a statement about statistical uncertainty. We obvious don't know enough to make definite statements about Providence.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Google maps, zip code 17527.
Son of Inigo
Thinker
That is what I thought when I read the article; wasn't Hoyle a proponent of the 'steady-state' universe? And didn't he inadvertently 'prove' the Big Bang theory while looking to disprove it instead? And yet in spite of that, remained a steady-state guy to the end?
If I got any of that wrong, it is because I am not a scientist. It is just what I think I remember from reading Simon Singh's Big Bang almost 10 years ago.
That embarrassment is what led me away from creationism and into ID (Yeah, I know, I know, but making a leap from 6K year old earth to Big Bang was a hell of a leap). I have since moved from ID to...... you all. Another quite big leap, but easier this time.
Apart from the fact that all your listed points are wrong and extremely silly, atheists would not be "weeping" if anyone did ever discover evidence of a supernatural God. All that most atheists say about God (and other gods) is that they don't believe it, because all evidence points to natural causes for human life (and the origin of the planet, and the rest of the universe) ... atheists are just being sensible and objective about what the evidence shows (evolution for example, as the explanation for homo sapiens).
But in the last 20-30 years we have made quite a lot of progress in both experimental and theoretical physics towards understanding how our universe came into existence via what we now all know as "the Big Bang". There's no shortage of research papers on all aspects of that. One element of that was in fact the recent confirmation of the Higgs Field by the LHC projects, to mention something that even most non-scientists have heard about.
However, all of those scientific discoveries and theoretical Big Bang models, show purely natural events. There is zero evidence of anything supernatural such as a God, ever involved anywhere.
So far from any atheists weeping about anything, those atheists who are interested in science and education, which seems to be rather a lot of them, have (as always) rather a lot of wonderful and ongoing research to be fascinated by and interested in.
What is rather sad, and perhaps a cause for some “weeping” is the way that even in the 21st century religious people still have to delude themselves and remain in scientific ignorance simply in order to keep up the pretence that there remains any good reason to believe in 1st century supernatural gods.
Babies and bathwater should be treated differently. The group that can be called "religious" and the group that rejects science ARE NOT the same; there is some overlap, but again, there's also overlap between the group "religious" and the group "active scientists making major contributions to their fields".IanS said:
Not true. We are learning the processes, and once we know those we can determine the probability of those processes operating in other areas. For example, if amino acids came from space, we can determine the probability of amino acids ariving at specific planets (obviously their distribution would not be homogenous). If we find that life is extremely easy to form, we can give a qualitative estimate of the probability of life in other parts of the universe. And so on. Not necessarily the arguments astronomers or physicists are used to working with, but it's certainly the type of arguments I'm used to dealing with. There's a certain art to dealing with bad datasets.Darwin123 said:
foophil
Graduate Poster
I second this. I, for one, am quite terrified at times that one day I'll die with nothing waiting for me on the 'other side'. I believe I'll turn into dust and eventually my atoms will be recycled for a while. Heck, I'm already the product of 'recycled atoms' to begin with. Then the Sun will absorb the Earth, blast out my atoms to the universe (cool!), and eventually the universe will cool into to the point where nothing in theory could survive (bummer).
That scares the hell out of me sometimes. Seriously. I don't want to die and have there be nothing waiting for me. I would GLADLY accept an afterlife of some sort - an immortality in a spiritual sense. That being said, I demand real evidence of it if I'm going to spend what little time I have left in this universe on worshiping it.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,114
First of all, how about some citations for these quotations? Given that astrophysicists and biologists have radically altered their views about the variety of environments in which life can exist over the last few decades, it's easy to find old quotes from such scientists who now no longer agree with what they once said.
And? How thorough a survey do you think we've conducted so far? Even now, our survey methods only allow us to search for limited types of planets.
Evidence?
Low and zero are a long way apart.
I intend to fossilize myself. Not sure about the specifics yet, but a man has to have SOME fun.
My wife, for some reason, thinks thinking about yourself as a fossil is creepy.foophil
Graduate Poster
I intend to fossilize myself. Not sure about the specifics yet, but a man has to have SOME fun.
You could go the Han Solo route. But why would you not want your atoms to be reused elsewhere? Seems so selfish!
ETA - My wife is planning on having my skull articulated. It is in my will. We are kind of weird.
You could go the Han Solo route. But why would you not want your atoms to be reused elsewhere? Seems so selfish!
Well, the squishy bits would be; I don't care about those. But the hard bits, I want them preserved for posterity. Gotta give the cockroaches something to dig up, and there's something to be said about providing for the continuation of my profession.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Why do you need science to verify the existence of God? Is faith not enough for you?
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Hoyle was a proponent of the steady state all his life and rejected the Big Bang theory, you are correct.
Congratulations on your leaps, I doubt that was easy to do.
The thrust of the authors argument seems to be argument by assertion and appeal to authority. He also quote mines amd quite possibly commits plagerism if one can plagerise from Wikipedia. The authors assertion the the absence of evidence for life elsewhere in the universe is evidence for absence and FOR the existence of his specific choice of God is breath takingly arrogant and silly. God and life elsewhere are not mutually exclusive and one is not evidence of the other or vice versa.
That is a curiousity in the argument. Why would a lack of life elsewhere be proof of a god? It's historically ignorant; previously religious thinkers thought that all celestial bodies had life, because on God worth the name would create so much useless, empty space. The discovery of uninhabited rocks in space was rather devistating. For another, I've read enough science fiction to be familiar with the fact that extraterrestrial life--even complex life--wouldn't be considered incompatable with Christianity, not by Christians. Read the books after Ender's Game if you want to see an example of such a thing.Biscuit said:
Any argument about a deity--for or against--must necessarily start with a discussion of the nature of that deity. This thread has none, and therefore we cannot know what counts as evidence for or against it. In my less-charitable moments I'm inclined to believe it's intentional on the part of many theists in these debates; leave your god open enough to interpretatoin and literally nothing can disprove it. Theologians do better, in my experience, but few that look into theology in any depth bother to debate on forums like this.
Anyway, my point is twofold. First, if we assume a traditional Judo/Christian/Islamic view of God (not unlikely in the USA and Europe) we can dismiss the argument as nonsense. If we DON'T make that assumption, but instead leave the definition to the arguer, in a very real sense no argument has been made, as the criteria for evidence for or against has not been established.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Marvelous!