The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!
For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.
Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.
The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.
If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?
You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.
If you were trump, you'd probably challenge the logic of such a manufacturer. The manufacturer would then shoot back with the idea that he makes millions only to pick the best one out of all of them. Then all the materials are recycled and used again through the same process. It costs nothing more because the recycled products are 100% reused and 100% recycled and you're guaranteed the best of the bunch. Manufactured in the way they'd be most useful.
I love the logic that the "better" explanation is we got lucky. Some of the greatest minds in science would laugh at that logic.
- Login to post comments
Offline They [the planets] are however visible enough to understand whether they could logically support life or not, which they can't.
You mean right now? Maybe not. There are planet/star combinations that could produce life in a few million years. Maybe it's rare for us to see it because it happens in several-hundred-million-year spurts that we can't catch a glimpse of. We're discussing a point of ignorance on both our parts, so it's pure speculation. That's why we can't calculate odds.
Basic ideas in many instances have taken until recent years to be "put together" by people, why is basic chemistry any indication that there is no God.
I don't think I said that. My approach to the problem of God has been to ask what is likely, not state unequivocally that a bearded creator definitely did not wave his hands and produce earth. That's just unlikely, considering we've never observed (directly or indirectly) evidence of anything poofed into existence.
Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's easily implemented naturally. If it were so in basic terms, the universe would be crawling with life.
It could be, but we wouldn't know. We don't have any way to make that observation yet.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I read your comments in the other thread and it supports what I said that gravity is a poor analogy. Your comments regarding earthquakes is also a poor analogy too as it is physical as well. If your god is outside the physical as you say measurement is not possible. If it acts upon the physical in some way then it should be. As you claim you have no physical proof you are in fact admitting he does not act upon the physical. Claiming that he does act in our time space dimension means measurement must be possible or that you are incorrect in assuming what you observe is an action of the god. Again, you can't have this both ways.
Simply, I'm trying different approaches. Obviously talking about anything besides something physical isn't going to make much progress... or at least that's what I'm seeing. So I try different analogies and see where they go. Gravity and Earthquakes obviously don't take place of how you'd study God, but they touch on aspects of why God is so difficult to comprehend.
e.g. Gravity: can't see it, thus can't describe it, only what it does, (same as God)
Earthquakes: don't tend to have a pattern or better wording would be they're unpredictable and therefore you can't measure an earthquakes effects before it happens. (same as God)
I've also concluded... I can't remember if it was in this forum or the other active one I'm a part of... that with the logic that if God's not physical, then he can't affect the physical then God must be physical, however, for what you're quoting, I was saying that you can't detect the being of God or his presence physically. I never said he doesn't affect the physical nor did I claim no evidence of his works in this world.
I understand what you are doing and my point was to get you to see if you percieve the god it must have a way to interact with our time space dimension. If he does do this and affects the physical dimension a means to measure or detect such must also be possible.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:Claim: God acts in the physical world. Interaction, interference or your perception of him.
Proof: Such & such is the action or perception.
Result: God is in the physical realm.
Measurement: What is it?
No way to measure means your claim is not true and you are not perceiving a god. How can you know of an entity that is not in our time space dimension? If you know of him/it then it interacts and measurement must exist.
yes, measurement must exist. Do we understand it yet as far as a science... no. This entity that's not in our space time dimension can manuver I'm sure through space and time at His will be it that he'd be the creator of all of it, therefore, it's not illogical to have a relationship with such a being.
There you go.
Now you need to explain how it is that you perceive of this god. Or if you relie on others who did and you accept their word for it. Then you must explain why you accept their word for it versus observations that are not determinate and expalin why you do so in light of your statement that no measurment currently exists to detect said god.
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:That doesn't mean you correctly followed the audit trail, only that you tried. Errors are made in interpreting data that others have created especially since no general standard existed at the time for documenting the data.
That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.
Further analysis and repeatable results by those who are neutral on the outcome. I'd say disinterested outsiders but as we all are parties in some way it's likely difficult to find that.
Based on your comments you have not considered sufficient data in you analysis as you have admited to lack of knowledge in ancient history such as Sumer. Further research on your part is needed in the area of ancient myths and gods so you fully take in consideration possible source material that developed the book you relie on to validate your position of faith.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.
So lemme get this strait, you're defending 400 Billion + to 1 odds of "spontaneous" life and yet are giving me flack about believing in God.
I guarantee as I was explaining in my last post that if the tables were turned, that conclusion would be unacceptable by the general RSS population.
Let me spell it out for you: if the odds are 400 billion to 1 that any particular planet would be suitable for the emergence of life, and we have 300 billion planets, then the odds that at least one planet out of those 300 billion will be ok for life will be over 50%. This is the sort of figure I'm defending.
So to estimate the probability of intelligent life arising at least once in the Universe, we have to take into account the number of 'throws of the die', which dramatically improves the odds.
Put it this way - you get 16.7% chance of a throwing a six in one throw of a die, 30.5% of at least one 6 in two throws, 42.4% in three throws, etc.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!
For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.
Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.
The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.
If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?
You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.
If you were trump, you'd probably challenge the logic of such a manufacturer. The manufacturer would then shoot back with the idea that he makes millions only to pick the best one out of all of them. Then all the materials are recycled and used again through the same process. It costs nothing more because the recycled products are 100% reused and 100% recycled and you're guaranteed the best of the bunch. Manufactured in the way they'd be most useful.
I love the logic that the "better" explanation is we got lucky. Some of the greatest minds in science would laugh at that logic.
WAKE UP!
Trump would be rightfully miffed at an "all powerful" manufacturer going out of it's way to do things the hard way.
"he makes millions only to pick the best one"
WHY? He is all powerfull, why not just make it perfect from the start without all the waste?
The waste indicates that there is no manufacturer. The waste indicates a natural crap shoot of an uncognative process. As soon as you postulate a magical manufacturer into the mix, the concept of all powerful contradicts the reality of waste.
Waste in REAL manufacturing is a fact that business people seek to minimize. I would say going by your claim(for argument's sake only) that it is absurd that a being who claims to be "all powerful" would even need to create all that waste, much less want to.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You mean right now? Maybe not. There are planet/star combinations that could produce life in a few million years. Maybe it's rare for us to see it because it happens in several-hundred-million-year spurts that we can't catch a glimpse of. We're discussing a point of ignorance on both our parts, so it's pure speculation. That's why we can't calculate odds.
yea, logic is a better approach. Odds are a good indicator however of what is more or less likely.
I don't think I said that. My approach to the problem of God has been to ask what is likely, not state unequivocally that a bearded creator definitely did not wave his hands and produce earth. That's just unlikely, considering we've never observed (directly or indirectly) evidence of anything poofed into existence.
Here's the other problem with opposing point of views. In order for God to exist, everything must have "poofed" into existence. Not that that holds any more logic than *BOOM* a few Billion years later here we are.
I digress. Why is it not logical to conclude that if we come to understanding of our surroundings through science, that God's "creating" took a similar approach? Sure, you look at Genesis and see "day 1 God made the heavens and the Earth". It makes it sound like a quick process, especially translating the time period word into day. I conclude that it was quite a long process. I would also conclude that:
1. When being presented with the story from God, God wanted to make sure important details were remembered and thus did not "bore" them with the non-consequential.
2. The author who had the revelation from God would find it quite tedious to have to detail the process of creation in the story.
3. I personally would not successfully read through a book that detailed the lengthy process of what actually happened at creation and I would ultimately miss the important point of the story being bombarded with excessive amounts of rather irrelevent information. My conclusion is that others would agree with me.
- Login to post comments
Offline I understand what you are doing and my point was to get you to see if you percieve the god it must have a way to interact with our time space dimension. If he does do this and affects the physical dimension a means to measure or detect such must also be possible.
He would do this and it is probable to measure the effects of the happening. The unpredictability of the energy we'd seek out to measure is that of an earthquake. The possibility of actually being there and knowing exactly what to use for measurement as it happens could possibly be beyond our abilities.
There you go.
Now you need to explain how it is that you perceive of this god. Or if you relie on others who did and you accept their word for it. Then you must explain why you accept their word for it versus observations that are not determinate and expalin why you do so in light of your statement that no measurment currently exists to detect said god.
ok, where do you want me to start? Maybe the personal stuff first... naw, that won't work because noone can disprove or prove a personal account if they weren't there themselves.
How about Biblical historocity and geology. Naw, just becasue the Bible coensides with history doesn't mean God is real. Other scripts do the same.... well except for the intervention and prophesy parts.
How about science. Eh... well everything in science is contingent upon the physical and therefore wouldn't directly point to a spiritual cause because it always seeks another physical source regardless if it's currently understood or not.
How about "God sightings" as they call it, where a person's life is dramatically changed due to an experience with God or finding God? Even though millions can come up with the same exact outcome due to a "God sighting", it's still dismissed as something psychological.
I can't rely on other's due to the fact that everyone implements their own opinion into what they feel is "the right way" e.g. religion, therefore, it's not because of what others have told me per say, but more so of what I've learned from others and compared and researched on my own through the above.
So again I must ask. Where to start? What would you accept?
caposkia wrote:That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.
Further analysis and repeatable results by those who are neutral on the outcome. I'd say disinterested outsiders but as we all are parties in some way it's likely difficult to find that.
Based on your comments you have not considered sufficient data in you analysis as you have admited to lack of knowledge in ancient history such as Sumer. Further research on your part is needed in the area of ancient myths and gods so you fully take in consideration possible source material that developed the book you relie on to validate your position of faith.
In my research, the majority of "neutral" people conclude on the side of God.
History has always been my weakness most likely due to my undiagnosed ADD and therefore it has been harder for me to retain specific details in history. However, everyday, I'm trying to learn more and my research is far from over. A good reference to what I do know is from "The Next Christiandom". It's a good timeline of the faith through history in the world.
- Login to post comments
Offline Let me spell it out for you: if the odds are 400 billion to 1 that any particular planet would be suitable for the emergence of life, and we have 300 billion planets, then the odds that at least one planet out of those 300 billion will be ok for life will be over 50%. This is the sort of figure I'm defending.
So to estimate the probability of intelligent life arising at least once in the Universe, we have to take into account the number of 'throws of the die', which dramatically improves the odds.
Put it this way - you get 16.7% chance of a throwing a six in one throw of a die, 30.5% of at least one 6 in two throws, 42.4% in three throws, etc.
I think realistically, the odds are in the quadrillions. The numbers you have presented are hypothetical at best and don't take into consideration all the aspects of creating life, only the odds of a planet having the possibility of sustaining life. When you add the other aspects, which I don't believe I have enough knowlege right now to name them all, the odds are dramatically reduced.
In other words, the odds of your dice analogy could be accurate, however, put all the dice together, now try to roll those exact numbers on each die. Depending on the number of dice in hand, the odds will dramatically reduce per greater the number.
- Login to post comments
Offline WAKE UP!
*snort* huh??
Trump would be rightfully miffed at an "all powerful" manufacturer going out of it's way to do things the hard way.
"he makes millions only to pick the best one"
WHY? He is all powerfull, why not just make it perfect from the start without all the waste?
The waste indicates that there is no manufacturer. The waste indicates a natural crap shoot of an uncognative process. As soon as you postulate a magical manufacturer into the mix, the concept of all powerful contradicts the reality of waste.
Waste in REAL manufacturing is a fact that business people seek to minimize. I would say going by your claim(for argument's sake only) that it is absurd that a being who claims to be "all powerful" would even need to create all that waste, much less want to.
You fail as Trump to realize what has been created. A self stustaining machine! Genius. No more hired hands, it creats on it's own. In order to be fully self sufficient, it would need to be able to adapt to change over time in order to still fully work. Thus it leaves a margin of error regardless of how perfect the system because change is not known until it happens. So for a failsafe, He installed a mechanism to narrow the margin of error and still work most efficiently while adapting to any and all changes.
Sorry imitation Trump
- Login to post comments
now we're getting into somantics. you're right about the odds being probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. Obviously the odds were good enough to produce life on this planet if you're going to look at it from that perspective.
let's back up to before the creation of any life. Then what are the odds not having the "earth" statistic. As you've easily pointed out, it's slim. If you think they're that good, the odds are less than winning the lottery, therefore you should put your life savings into the lottery. You're pretty much guaranteed to win right?
You're saying he didn't suffer the full force of the punishment. Sure ok he didn't die a perminant death. There are many reasons for that as I previously explained a bit of. However if he did die perminantly, then it'd be my assumption that we'd no longer be dying because that's a consequence for sin as well.
Jesus only paid the way to God for us. That's it
As far as Hell, what is hell?
Sure, many believers may "vocalize" that they would take it literally, however, how many followers do you see walking around with missing body parts? Or do you think they're really that sinless.
one of my current posts explained the constant that gravity is vs. God's "choice" to use his power when and how he wants.
it sounds a lot like my process to coming to my faith then.
numbers don't lie
I am looking at it from that perspective, because that's the available data we have. You asked what the odds are, and
I guess I was trying to point out that it's speculation either way. We know that carbon behaves in a way such that life will result from chemicals combining in a certain situation. I guess what you're asking is how odd that situation really would be.
If there are 100 billion stars in the universe (obviously simplified) then maybe 400 billion planets? I think the odds of you arriving at the situation we had on earth is pretty good, with 400 billion chances.
If you're betting that life will show up on one of 400 billion planets over the course of 10 billion years, then it's kind of the opposite of the lottery. It would be like a lottery where you have all the tickets, and only one of them has to come up a winner. You're helped by the fact that a lot of planets are probably going to contain carbon and hydrogen already.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
The figure I gave above of 400 billion planets is really low. For the observable universe, a low actual estimate of the number of stars is 30 billion trillion stars. So even my overly conservative estimate of the planets gives us incredibly good odds that RNA or phospholipids will spontaneously organize at some point over 10 billion years. The odds are really good, in fact, that it would happen thousands of times.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
While we are mentioning lagit science, let me remind everyone here of Cappy's game plan.
The end goal is the claim that the Christian God is the one true god.
Cappy is deluded into believing that "spirits" exist, but we know this is absurd, because Cap has no way of defining a "spirit" or replicating or falsifying such a claim.
BUT, if we humor cap by going by the "spirit" model for the sake of argument, the end goal is still there "The God of Jesus is the one true god"
What cap fails to take into account dispite the blatant lack of evidence for "spirits", is that Cap would not buy the "spirit" argument if a Muslim were using that tactic with the end goal of presenting Allah into the gap.
Would Cap buy this "spirit" tactic if a Hindu's end goal was to prove the existance of Vishnu?
Cap's mistake is thinking we have not played this game before and must think that we are stupid in not thinking ahead.
So while all these scientific facts are valid in refuting Cap's absurd naked assertions, Cap is still stuck with no evidence for the particular personal claim made.
Cap, work on getting "spirit" DNA, get it peer reviewed and falsified, then you will have something. Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.
ALLAH EXISTS
YAHWEY EXISTS
VISHNU EXISTS
SPIRITS EXIST
I CAN FART A FULL SIZED LAMBORGHINI OUT OF MY ASS
All fit the same catigory of NAKED ASSERTION.
When you start with a naked assertion, everything that follows is just as steamy and stinky as the starting claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Again Cap, I wasn't saying believers cut off body parts only that an archaic writing advocated it and it shouldn't be considered literally which is what you said as well. The point was Hammurabi, Canaanite stories, and the Bible all have these archaic concepts including stoning of individuals that are in fact victims. You already do not follow many of these rules and laws handed down by the ancients but do accept others such as the Jesus stories.
I read your comments in the other thread and it supports what I said that gravity is a poor analogy. Your comments regarding earthquakes is also a poor analogy too as it is physical as well. If your god is outside the physical as you say measurement is not possible. If it acts upon the physical in some way then it should be. As you claim you have no physical proof you are in fact admitting he does not act upon the physical. Claiming that he does act in our time space dimension means measurement must be possible or that you are incorrect in assuming what you observe is an action of the god. Again, you can't have this both ways.
Claim: God acts in the physical world. Interaction, interference or your perception of him.
Proof: Such & such is the action or perception.
Result: God is in the physical realm.
Measurement: What is it?
No way to measure means your claim is not true and you are not perceiving a god. How can you know of an entity that is not in our time space dimension? If you know of him/it then it interacts and measurement must exist.
That doesn't mean you correctly followed the audit trail, only that you tried. Errors are made in interpreting data that others have created especially since no general standard existed at the time for documenting the data.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
400 billion to 1 and you're calling them pretty good odds.......
wow
you like to stretch it as far as it can go huh. We're getting to the point where the odds of an intelligence behind life is better. Those numbers mind you were only estimates from you and are probably underestimated. Maybe the reasoning isn't understood by the physical scientists as to how this being could exist, but statistically speaking... well, it makes more sense.
Again, the above logic would not have worked for me on here as far as support for God. I can pretty much guarantee it.
So lemme get this strait, you're defending 400 Billion + to 1 odds of "spontaneous" life and yet are giving me flack about believing in God.
I guarantee as I was explaining in my last post that if the tables were turned, that conclusion would be unacceptable by the general RSS population.
For your statistics to hold water, your theory is correct that it would have happened thousands of times, not just once. And yet of the trillions of planets and stars that we have observed, there has been no observable life.
You're trying to twist bad odds around to sound good... do you work in real estate?
What are you worried about? You are so adamant in "reminding" people of my purpose on here as if you're worried that I might start making sense to them.
People on here are smart, I wouldn't worry about them so much. If my "game plan" is so utterly unreasonable, then there should be no concern of you that everyone will forget my game plan.
Honestly, why such concern over me? It seems you fear a progressive conversation.
Also, I don't remember having an interview with you. How do you know my decision in certain situations?
unless.... *gasp*
you're making assumptions. but... that wouldn't be rational OR logical.
Most of those planets aren't visible to the point that we'd be able to see whether there's life on them or not. Don't lose hope just yet.
Haha! No, but good call. Since it's a big deal when we can view planets directly at all (Cf. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/11/two-reports-detail-imaging-of-extrasolar-planets.ars), the odds are still good considering the number of probable planets in the billions of observable galaxies.
I guess my point in all of this is that "odds" is a silly way to examine the problem, given that we can't know what the odds really are. Are they very good, considering how likely the combination of things that make life probably are, or are they very bad, considering how little life we know of in the universe? The answer is we don't know, so that kind of speculation is largely fruitless.
We do know, however, that life can be formed from basic chemistry. If that's possible, then the need for something to have started the process diminishes considerably.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!
For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.
Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.
The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.
If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?
You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Simply, I'm trying different approaches. Obviously talking about anything besides something physical isn't going to make much progress... or at least that's what I'm seeing. So I try different analogies and see where they go. Gravity and Earthquakes obviously don't take place of how you'd study God, but they touch on aspects of why God is so difficult to comprehend.
e.g. Gravity: can't see it, thus can't describe it, only what it does, (same as God)
Earthquakes: don't tend to have a pattern or better wording would be they're unpredictable and therefore you can't measure an earthquakes effects before it happens. (same as God)
I've also concluded... I can't remember if it was in this forum or the other active one I'm a part of... that with the logic that if God's not physical, then he can't affect the physical then God must be physical, however, for what you're quoting, I was saying that you can't detect the being of God or his presence physically. I never said he doesn't affect the physical nor did I claim no evidence of his works in this world.
yes, measurement must exist. Do we understand it yet as far as a science... no. This entity that's not in our space time dimension can manuver I'm sure through space and time at His will be it that he'd be the creator of all of it, therefore, it's not illogical to have a relationship with such a being.
That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.
They are however visible enough to understand whether they could logically support life or not, which they can't.
odds seemed to make progress in some conversations, that's why I focused on it.
Basic ideas in many instances have taken until recent years to be "put together" by people, why is basic chemistry any indication that there is no God. Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's easily implemented naturally. If it were so in basic terms, the universe would be crawling with life.