[Morgoth]

I always wondered about the argument with chance of life on earth and all that... Considering the crushing number of star systems in the galaxy, not to mention the universe as a whole, at least one such developing human life really isn't very surprising.

[Satan]

stone monkey;207620 said:

Religious-type people are capable of saying sensible things about the human condition - Christ's alleged "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you" is probably the most rational thing to ever come out of a religion (although I do suspect that it really wasn't an original thought) The hatstand batshittery seems to arrive on the scene when they go on to declare that living a decent life is contingent on the addition to this, perfectly sensible, advice of a very particular set of irrationalities...

Buddhism and Buddha is believed to have had a variant of that five hundred years before the birth of Christ. Whether he was the first one (or taht he actually said it) is hard to put in stone, though.

[McLovin]

Brynjar;210791 said:

Buddhism and Buddha is believed to have had a variant of that five hundred years before the birth of Christ. Whether he was the first one (or taht he actually said it) is hard to put in stone, though.

Okay. And your point is....?

[Satan]

To back up the statement that Christ most likely wasn't the first.

[Tremolo]

Brynjar;211378 said:

To back up the statement that Christ most likely wasn't the first.

You mean Maria Magdalene had slep with other guys before she met Christ???

*is shocked and appalled*

[Hume]

Tremolo;211383 said:

You mean Maria Magdalene had slep with other guys before she met Christ???

*is shocked and appalled*

Indeed. Apparently it isn't normal to want to have sex.

[McLovin]

Brynjar;211378 said:

To back up the statement that Christ most likely wasn't the first.

I'll buy that. So....

[Gothos]

MecnunK;210651 said:

How can it be as likely? I am not sure I follow. Random relies on a bunch of luck for it to have happened whereas there is no such luck involved if you do believe in a God. Perhaps you are referring to the 'possibility' of either scenario being equal in mathmatical terms ?

referring to probability or luck in this case is not valid, as there is no data available for us to be able to tell one or the other for sure. with the undefined probabilities for both options it can be said that they're both just as likely from our point of view

[ch'arlz]

Gothos;211460 said:

referring to probability or luck in this case is not valid, as there is no data available for us to be able to tell one or the other for sure. with the undefined probabilities for both options it can be said that they're both just as likely from our point of view

I disagree. We know with 100% certainty that the universe exists in its present form and operates according to the laws of physics. I think it's far more likely that a coherent explication of the origins of the universe will come from physics than from a myth-making tradition that is itself only thousands of years old and which continues to mutate the creation story.

[Gothos]

ch said:

I disagree. We know with 100% certainty that the universe exists in its present form and operates according to the laws of physics. I think it's far more likely that a coherent explication of the origins of the universe will come from physics than from a myth-making tradition that is itself only thousands of years old and which continues to mutate the creation story.

we still can't say how was it set in motion. you can't gather data from before time started expanding.
I'm not saying that those creation myths are true. they're symbollic at best, and terrbily stupid at worst. I'm just saying that whether the universe started itself on it's own accord or was started by some awesome being cannot be logically decided.

[ch'arlz]

Gothos;211469 said:

I'm just saying that whether the universe started itself on it's own accord or was started by some awesome being cannot be logically decided.

Your original post stated "that they're both just as likely from our point of view." I can logically decide that isn't true.

[stone monkey]

I've been away from this discussion for a while but here's some thoughts:

What I meant when I said the that random chance was at least as likely an origin for the universe as God was that, to my mind, it was the far more probable of the two...

As for random chance relying on luck; we're here, we were the lucky ones.
As for God's creation of humanity being inevitable - He could equally have chosen to create us differently, so luck applies there too. Unless of course you believe that God could only create humans as they currently are... Which gets you into some pretty interesting philosophical and theological territory.

A thought occurs to me (and diverse others...); if God did create the universe (an insurmountable "if", if you ask me...) why did He create it looking, for all the world, like He wasn't involved at all?

[ch'arlz]

stone monkey;211480 said:

What I meant when I said the that random chance was at least as likely an origin for the universe as God was that, to my mind, it was the far more probable of the two...

but that's a false dichotomy, that it's either 'accidental' or the creation of a deity. Humans today may not understand the precise mechanisms but that doesn't mean they aren't knowable, at least in theory. Humans today do not understand the precise mechanisms of gravity but we needn't posit a deity to explain its effects.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Gothos;211460 said:

referring to probability or luck in this case is not valid, as there is no data available for us to be able to tell one or the other for sure. with the undefined probabilities for both options it can be said that they're both just as likely from our point of view

This "equally likely" stuff is nonsense.

To illustrate:

Let us pretend I know nothing about Gothos' nationality. I can then set up two alternatives - he is Dutch, or he is French. I say "I have no idea either way, so both are equally likely."

A stupid thing to say, isn't it? Well it's no different from Gothos' original statement.

It tells us nothing.

[Called-by-the-Voices]

caladanbrood;149897 said:

I'm not religious, I don't go to church, I don't pray, but I have faith in a god. Which option do I pick?

That's me, also.... I put atheist.. [cause I was never baptised, my mother being Catholic Christian, and my father being Ortodox Christian]

[MecnunK]

Gothos;211460 said:

referring to probability or luck in this case is not valid, as there is no data available for us to be able to tell one or the other for sure. with the undefined probabilities for both options it can be said that they're both just as likely from our point of view

I agree on that for pro-cretaion the data or concept is irrelevant however there is some data available on probabilities of things happening by chance to create life. Certainly some on proteins being formed out of the primoridial soup etc.. and yes the probabilities for those are astronomical..so many zeros as to be beyond human comprehension..

Debate usually boils down to

Pro-creation - I have faith, God created me and I cannot see any other way for life

Pro-Evo - bollox , life came from primeordial soup and by random chance and we are where we are through evolution

Pro-Creation - the chances of random life out of nothing are pretty fricking remote if you look at the probabilities so I dont buy the random crap.. leave platcis steel and sand etc and after a billion years you wont get a Patek Phillipe will you dumb ass..

Pro-Evo - ummm prove there is a God

Pro-Creation - errrr you gotta have faith you godless turd..Show me your transitional life fossils..should be loads right?

Pro-evo- we are working on it, this is what science is about discovering the truth

Pro-Creation - it's easier to discover God than one of those fossils fool..


Personally I believe that the amount of strife humans have caused in name of religion or God has turned people off the idea of a God and they are willing to grasp any alternate theory that leads to no God in their lives. Combine that with the hedonistic and materialist slife style we are encouraged to lead in any society these days and the need for God diminishes by the day.. Why be nice to my neighbour and give alms when I gots to buy that LCD TV cause next door has one ... Important thing though is that it is humans themselves who have abused religions.

[Darkwatch]

@Mecnunk

There are rules governing posts in this forum. While they are usually ignored by both sides they have caused threads to be shut down more then once.

There seems to be a lot of bitterness in your post. The point here is to discuss, not to beat down the other (though it happens anyway), try and keep it civil. Repercussions have happened.


That being said, your basic arguments seem to contradict themselves.

You ask science to prove that evolution is not so absurdly remote.
Yet if they ask you to prove god, you simply seem to cop out by saying if you don't have faith then it can't be done. Such a universal being would be beyond a single persons faith (or lack thereof).

Also your last point is rather strange. You seem to be saying that since it's easier to believe in god then to prove scientific theory than it means that god is the right answer.
This really doesn't seem to make sense, just because something is easy it doesn't mean it's true.
It would be easier to believe that everything revolves around the Earth, or that the elements (Earth, Fire, Air, Water) do compose everything.

As to your platcis steel thing, you seem to think that the theory of evolution is based on the idea of spontaneous genesis from the late 18th century when they believed you could create mice by leaving burlap and grain in a room for four days. This is not the case.
I'm no molecular biologist, but from what I've read, a build up from a thermodynamic life source towards RNA makes sense and would explain why life took so long to occur.
Not to mention that viruses severely blur the line between organic and non-organic, showing that life from a non organic source may not be so bizarre.

Transitional fossils exist (even if the idea is somewhat bizarre since life is continuously changing, there are no final versions). Just to take humans as an example:
Australopithecus
v
Homo Habilis, Austalopithecus boisei, etc.
v
Homo Erectus
v
Homo Sapiens Archaic
v
Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis
v
Anatomicaly Modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens

Not to mention the finds between therapods (dinosaur type) and birds and that inbetween dino-bird (whose name escapes me at the moment).


Wow, that was longer than I thought it would be.


*Cues Dolorous Menhir cracking his knuckles before typing counter Flame*

Well looks like the religion board is about to heat up again.

[MecnunK]

@darkwatch.. I must admit to some confusion regards your post..

bitterness towards who or what? I was merely illustrating the point that a debate or argument of this nature gets reduced to these things in the end.. I wasnt even really taking a side as such but showing both points of view.

My point was.............that existence of God cannot be proven by pro-creation and intelligent design followers

&

Evolution as such as a theory overall as an explanation for life is also full of holes..

was'nt beating anyone down! and am quite surprised that you preceived it as such


Btw what you have highlighted as examples of transitional fossils could it simply be that there were a variety of apes that have now become extinct?

As for dinobirds and transition between fish and land dwelling animals there seem to be alot of suppositions and one strange fossil found does not equate to validation of theory of evolution.

""'Im no molecular biologist, but from what I've read, a build up from a thermodynamic life source towards RNA makes sense and would explain why life took so long to occur.
Not to mention that viruses severely blur the line between organic and non-organic, showing that life from a non organic source may not be so bizarre.""

Yes it would explain if there was enough reserach and it was conclusively proven. Just because it makes sense in reading or as a theory doesnt actually make it true.

but I have to say you missed the jist of my previous post.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Darkwatch;211585 said:

*Cues Dolorous Menhir cracking his knuckles before typing counter Flame*

Hmm. I don't have any quarrel with your post, Darkwatch. I think it is quite reasonable, except for the minor fact that the MecnunK post I read bore no relation to the one you went on to critique - I thought he was indulging in some boring "both sides are petty and don't have answers" clichefest and you seem to have read it as an anti-science true believer spiel. Maybe you know more about MecnunK's background than I do, but I don't follow his beliefs that closely.

But I never crack my knuckles, so na na na-na na you were wrong.

[councilor]

wow.

i didn't know this forum was a nesting place of heathens and herretics. great stuff!