Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
There is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".
Click to expand...

I don't think that word means what you think it does...
 
It's the theists I fear for most. While it's undeniable that God created the universe (finetuning, clockmaking, puddle-affirming, reptile-stacking wonderment), it's not the God you've come to know and fear.
The universe was created by the ever-shifting writhing mass of multidimensional tentacles and gaping maws known as Glurbothraxx the devourer. To gaze upon zir is to go mad, forget what madness is, come out the other end as supra-sane and subsequently go mad again from the revelation.
We were created on a rainy tuesday morning as a packed lunch, for Glörbothraxxx (schplir's schpelling works in mysterious ways) to munch on during lunch break in Old Glurby's office tesseract. Galaxies are its ham, interstellar clouds its mustard, know this and weep!
And so it was prophecied that theists should be the tastiest morsels. Long shall they suffer, great be their pain!

tl;dr version: Even íf the universe were finetuned (for which there is no proof), that still doesn't mean your preferred deity is the architect.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe



No one found any planets with the ability to support life...



The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...



The probability that the universe formed is low as well...



Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...





This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly

This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.

3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".

I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

That's just my guitar.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
...
Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...
Click to expand...

Ha! I can up that ante (or would, if I could be bothered to google the link): I tell ya, there are at least 700 scientists who say "whoa! look-a-there! must-a-be god!"
 
Correct me if I am wrong. But if you distill your argument down to it's essence you seem to be saying that it is proper to use the Anthropic principle on habitable worlds and if life could evolve on them, but improper to use the Anthropic principle on the fine tuning problem with regards to the universe?

I have also seen this used as a "proof" that there must be a God, or some kind of creator. While I don't think there is an iron clad "proof" of God. Faith is still required. I do think there is a good point to be made there. Any argument attempting to use the Anthropic principle on the Universe must always assume a multiverse first. That assumption is not a given. Trying to use the Anthropic principle in reverse and claim there can't be fine tuning because the Anthropic principle proves the multiverse, is a circular logic fallacy.

It is proper to use Anthropic principle to show there is no fine tuning problem with evolution of life on planet Earth. There are after all many stars with many planets around them. But it is not proper to use the Anthropic principle to claim there is no fine tuning problem with the Universe. Until there is actually evidence of a multiverse, one couldn't use the Anthropic principle without making that logic fallacy. On the other hand there is only anecdotal evidence of God too. So both sides lack the proper evidence to use this line of argument. Boils down once again to faith. I think this thread is in the wrong forum.
 
I recognize that it is, objectively, a waste of time to respond to a drive-by poster who has ignored, or failed to comprehend, all of the previous discussions pointing out that the universe, is, in its overwhelming majority, in fact, NOT "fine-tuned for life" (especially LAWKI), but actually inimical if not outright fatal to life (especially LAWKI).

That being said, "Once more dear friends onto the beach":

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Carl Sagan estimates the number of planets supporting life in the universe

No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...

This is, simply, not true.

1. Even if you limit yourself to LAWKI, planets "with the ability to support life" have been discovered in their multitudes.

2. If what you mean is, "We have not made contact with 'aliens' yet," say so. You do realize that's a different argument, right?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The actual parameters for a life supporting planet are much larger...
Click to expand...

I wonder if you realize that this unsupported assertion only demonstrates that you are inescapably committed to equivocating "life" and "LAWKI".

Have you, perhaps, the faintest bit of support for the assertion?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The probability that the universe formed is low as well...
Click to expand...

Rich Savage, is that you?

At this point, since the universe does, in fact, exist, the "probability" that the universe "formed" is, well, 1. Every universe of which we have evidence "formed".

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Quotes from 2 scientists summarize the point...
Click to expand...

Interesting that you ignore every scientist who did not become a [/I]woo!perstitionist in their dotage.

Cherry-picking is fun, innit?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This proves simply that it is highly unlikely that life evolved randomly
Click to expand...

1. Misusing the concept of "proves"

2. What facts have you offered?

3. Who do you pretend is of the opinion that life "evolved randomly"?

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
This is supported by the science and the probabilities derived from science

1. #planets supporting life and

2. probability that the universe was able to form using our understanding of the forces that govern its existence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you would be so kind as to support your assertions, rather than pretending that making the assertions is, in itself, support enough.

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
3. there is no direct scientific evidence of the mechanism by which evolution has taken place (which is happening non randomly). The only evidence of evolution is that life has appeared where it once did not appear - a tautology not evidence of any mechanism by which it appears. Again you can't say it happened randomly because the evidence is that evolution is not random it is "punctuated".
Click to expand...

Wow. How many misconceptions can dance on the head of a pin?

You are conflating "evolution" and "biopoesis". While that does not automatically indicate that all of your arguments are dishonest, it does mean that you have not been paying attention; that you are not aware of the difference, that you are comfortable with carelessness and inaccuracy; or some combination of the above.

You continue to demonstrate misuse of "randomly".

You appear to be misusing the simple English noun, "tautology".

You might want to make sure you understand a concept before you argue against it, lest you seem to be building up an army of persons of straw, pockets stuffed with pale-pink sprats...

Elf Grinder 3000 said:
I can hear atheists silently weeping
Click to expand...

You may want to get an auditory evaluation, and/or counseling.

Interesting that you appear not to realize that you are simply repeating arguments dealt with before. I suggest some reading--I will be glad to make recommendations, if you are serious.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
No one found any planets with the ability to support life...
Click to expand...

Oh well. I guess we should just stop looking then. I mean, we've managed to look at a whopping 0.00000000000001% of all planets in the universe (I may be off by many orders of magnitudes), and done so with tools that couldn't possibly tell us if life existed on them. So therefore, life doesn't exist. God wins. Good argument. </sarcasm off>
 
bit_pattern said:
Pretty sure they've started finding smaller bodies that could theoretically be capable of supporting life (as we know it).
Click to expand...

What we have recently found are planets that have orbits which permits the presence of liquid water on their surface.

We don't yet know if they actually have any water or anything about any atmospheres they may or may not have.
 
I am glad that science is finally giving us the answers we need.

Which religion turned out to be correct?
 
The first exosolar planet's discovery was only confirmed about 20 years ago.

Confirming life on one of those planets? It may take longer.
 
And, when we do find life elsewhere in the Universe as we most likely surely will, will the Elf Grinders of the world um . . . er . . . you know. Or will they move the goal posts? One hopes, at least, that they will stop grinding elves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom