A discussion on life (Scientific, not philosophical)
-
I am both not hurt, and rather am moved with pity for the patheticness of the life of someone who would one vote me for having a view and being willing to share it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I up-voted it - apparently I don't possess much clout though. ;P
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life.
Rather, if there is life, there is liquid water.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives
I really don't know. The problem is that we have a sample size of one in a mind-bogglingly large universe, so extrapolation is risky.
Dalek Dave wrote:
do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
Yes. It'll be even greater if it can be shown to have started independently from life on Earth. I hope life is discovered on another world within my lifetime, especially one outside the Solar System, because I want to see how the world's religions handle it.
viaducting wrote:
Rather, if there is life, there is liquid water
That's what I thought.
Kevin
-
I up-voted it - apparently I don't possess much clout though. ;P
Only slightly less than the down voter. Which proves it was not a univoter. Thanks - I didn't expect people to cheer my POV, but I wish if people disagree, they could discuss instead of just voting.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
During my current module (I am doing an Open University course on life sciences) I am learning about the beginnings of life. It is a contentious issue. Some think it was foam, others mud, some think it was an iron first development and so on... However, given all research and evidence, it becomes apparent that the golden rule is if there is liquid water, there is life. Posit. If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal. Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
If life, or evidence of past life, is found on one other body in the solar system, be it Mars, Europa or wherever, it is a sign that life is universal.
Yes. Either life only exists on Earth or it exists everywhere (by "everywhere" I mean it is widespread in the universe).
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives
I have a reasonable expectation. This is more so given my viewing of programmes such as BBC's Wonders of the Solar System that emphasise how life flourishes in such extreme environments on Earth while nothing that similar environments seem to exist on other planets/moons.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Do you expect that life will be found elsewhere within our lives, and do you agree that it will be The Greatest Discovery Ever?
Undoubtedly.
Kevin
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It all becomes much simpler if we just ditch the idea of a god and just look at the chemical ways in which life could be formed. Such as the Miller-Urey experiment[^]. God was not needed for that experiment. Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not. Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere? Accepting the idea of a god is problematic - where did he come from? How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence? So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe until we find something that can truly only be explained by accepting the existence of god. But beware, humans have thought that before, and they were always wrong (lightning does not come from god, nor do the seasons).
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them
If He did create it why would He have created it on only a single planet in the universe?
Kevin
-
It all becomes much simpler if we just ditch the idea of a god and just look at the chemical ways in which life could be formed. Such as the Miller-Urey experiment[^]. God was not needed for that experiment. Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not. Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere? Accepting the idea of a god is problematic - where did he come from? How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence? So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe until we find something that can truly only be explained by accepting the existence of god. But beware, humans have thought that before, and they were always wrong (lightning does not come from god, nor do the seasons).
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Well, the two are not incompatible. If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen. I read a lot of popular science, I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere?
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
harold aptroot wrote:
How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence?
Well, He does, as it happens. But that's edging pretty close to Soapbox material.
harold aptroot wrote:
So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way. Scott Adams ( of Dilbert fame ) wrote several books, and in one he talked about his belief that picturing something you want to happen, can make it happen. In the next, he talks at length about his response to people who pilloried him for his view, and in particular talks about how Occams Razor is a farce in the sense it is used by people today. I don't agree with him on the visualisation thing, but I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic. Funny, the guy who runs the skeptic magazine in the US wrote a number of the books I've read of late, and he seems to be a calm, decent, logical individual. So are most skeptics, but the first book I read was 'why do smart people believe dumb things' or something similar. Yes, creationists got a chapter :-) It's funny to me that in some ways, that is true of the skeptic movement, and it's obsession with misapplication of Occam's Razor. I googled for the chapter online, but could not find it. It appears to be in the book 'the jo
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them
If He did create it why would He have created it on only a single planet in the universe?
Kevin
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ? Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Well, the two are not incompatible. If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen. I read a lot of popular science, I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere?
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
harold aptroot wrote:
How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence?
Well, He does, as it happens. But that's edging pretty close to Soapbox material.
harold aptroot wrote:
So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way. Scott Adams ( of Dilbert fame ) wrote several books, and in one he talked about his belief that picturing something you want to happen, can make it happen. In the next, he talks at length about his response to people who pilloried him for his view, and in particular talks about how Occams Razor is a farce in the sense it is used by people today. I don't agree with him on the visualisation thing, but I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic. Funny, the guy who runs the skeptic magazine in the US wrote a number of the books I've read of late, and he seems to be a calm, decent, logical individual. So are most skeptics, but the first book I read was 'why do smart people believe dumb things' or something similar. Yes, creationists got a chapter :-) It's funny to me that in some ways, that is true of the skeptic movement, and it's obsession with misapplication of Occam's Razor. I googled for the chapter online, but could not find it. It appears to be in the book 'the jo
Cool this is getting interesting :)
Christian Graus wrote:
If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen.
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years.. They came pretty close though, it's not a terribly big step going from amino-acids to proteins, just give it some time and it will randomly happen - of course that isn't life yet, but again that's not a really big step, just a slow one.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?". This supposedly powerful god would create life on one seemingly random planet and then walk off, only to never do it again? Sure, it's possible, it's just doesn't make any sense.. But what you are saying now makes even less sense to me. Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all? Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
Christian Graus wrote:
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way.
What is not meaningful about it? He is not needed to explain any observed phenomena, therefore he does not exist. Or show me something that can only be explained by god's existence :)
-
Cool this is getting interesting :)
Christian Graus wrote:
If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen.
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years.. They came pretty close though, it's not a terribly big step going from amino-acids to proteins, just give it some time and it will randomly happen - of course that isn't life yet, but again that's not a really big step, just a slow one.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?". This supposedly powerful god would create life on one seemingly random planet and then walk off, only to never do it again? Sure, it's possible, it's just doesn't make any sense.. But what you are saying now makes even less sense to me. Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all? Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
Christian Graus wrote:
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way.
What is not meaningful about it? He is not needed to explain any observed phenomena, therefore he does not exist. Or show me something that can only be explained by god's existence :)
harold aptroot wrote:
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years..
Well, that's kind of the issue. I don't see any way they can prove it, any time soon. In the meantime, it's all good science, I mean, it's good that we look at these things. I just doubt they will actually prove there is no God, they will simply do experiments that prove some basic things can happen in a controlled environment, and some people will assume it's curtains for God.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?"
What I meant by that is, 'it seems logical to me that if God existed, He would have xxx', where xxx could be, made life on other planets, not made spiders, or made all girls look like Jessica Alba. I'm accustomed to people telling me there can't be a God, because He didn't do something that seems to them like a good idea. I don't know why. I just know I'm not calling the shots.
harold aptroot wrote:
and then walk off, only to never do it again?
Because He did it the once, He didn't walk off, He's now interacting with the life He created.
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just doesn't make any sense..
Yes, that's my point. What God does, doesn't have to make sense to us, any more than it makes sense to my kids when I say they can't have ice cream before dinner and should not play on the road.
harold aptroot wrote:
Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all?
It doesn't have to imply that, no.
harold aptroot wrote:
Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
That is a possible case, yes.
harold aptroot wrote:
What is not meaningful about it?
I wish I could quote Scott Adams. Because it just raises more questions. Simplest according to who ? Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through. Science is great BECAUSE it takes us from simple minded explanations, to co
-
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ? Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ?
Ah, so you're a theist then? But I would say nothing really follows one way or the other. Are you a Christian? I think Christianity strongly tends to the view that creation is for Man but doesn't strictly imply it. I vaguely remember reading some discussion by C. S. Lewis on this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it
Yes. Well, it depends what we mean by "accident." If the probability is vanishingly small then it may only have happened once. If the probability is small but reasonable then I would expect life to be everywhere. Personally, if we discount your theistic view, I think the second is more likely. I can't prove this other than by reference to the symmetry of the universe and the strangeness of life, i.e., complex events can't be explained by vanishingly small probabilities.
Kevin
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Verifying theories by experiments is the basis of science, believing what some old and poorly translated book is saying is not.
Well, the two are not incompatible. If experiments actually prove that life can spontaneously exist, then I'm willing to listen. I read a lot of popular science, I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also, if we accept the claim that god must exist because there is life, then why isn't there life elsewhere?
Well, that's not my claim. My claim is, there is a God, based on my experience, and therefore I believe He created life. It's kind of backwards to what you said. But, assuming I did make that claim, why would there have to be life everywhere ? The weakest argument proposed by people who claim there can't be a God is 'If there was a God, he'd have done things my way', IMO.
harold aptroot wrote:
How did he leave no direct evidence of his existence?
Well, He does, as it happens. But that's edging pretty close to Soapbox material.
harold aptroot wrote:
So Occam's Razor cuts god out of the universe
Only by a word game, not in any meaningful way. Scott Adams ( of Dilbert fame ) wrote several books, and in one he talked about his belief that picturing something you want to happen, can make it happen. In the next, he talks at length about his response to people who pilloried him for his view, and in particular talks about how Occams Razor is a farce in the sense it is used by people today. I don't agree with him on the visualisation thing, but I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic. Funny, the guy who runs the skeptic magazine in the US wrote a number of the books I've read of late, and he seems to be a calm, decent, logical individual. So are most skeptics, but the first book I read was 'why do smart people believe dumb things' or something similar. Yes, creationists got a chapter :-) It's funny to me that in some ways, that is true of the skeptic movement, and it's obsession with misapplication of Occam's Razor. I googled for the chapter online, but could not find it. It appears to be in the book 'the jo
Christian Graus wrote:
I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
Well, maybe you don't ignore it, but I've heard you discuss evolution and it's very obvious that you don't understand it.
Christian Graus wrote:
I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic.
I completely disagree. Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years..
Well, that's kind of the issue. I don't see any way they can prove it, any time soon. In the meantime, it's all good science, I mean, it's good that we look at these things. I just doubt they will actually prove there is no God, they will simply do experiments that prove some basic things can happen in a controlled environment, and some people will assume it's curtains for God.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?"
What I meant by that is, 'it seems logical to me that if God existed, He would have xxx', where xxx could be, made life on other planets, not made spiders, or made all girls look like Jessica Alba. I'm accustomed to people telling me there can't be a God, because He didn't do something that seems to them like a good idea. I don't know why. I just know I'm not calling the shots.
harold aptroot wrote:
and then walk off, only to never do it again?
Because He did it the once, He didn't walk off, He's now interacting with the life He created.
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just doesn't make any sense..
Yes, that's my point. What God does, doesn't have to make sense to us, any more than it makes sense to my kids when I say they can't have ice cream before dinner and should not play on the road.
harold aptroot wrote:
Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all?
It doesn't have to imply that, no.
harold aptroot wrote:
Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
That is a possible case, yes.
harold aptroot wrote:
What is not meaningful about it?
I wish I could quote Scott Adams. Because it just raises more questions. Simplest according to who ? Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through. Science is great BECAUSE it takes us from simple minded explanations, to co
You can't prove that something doesn't exist.. We can't prove that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, maybe she is really out there, but never detected - we can't know that. That doesn't mean that she exists, either. I'd say it's rather safe to assume that she does not, because that assumption does not conflict with any observed phenomena.
Christian Graus wrote:
Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through.
It's not really like that, you know. It was never about "the simplest explanation", but rather "the simplest of two explanation that could both be correct". Anything with god in it is not immediately irrevocably false, but there has been a great history of things being blamed on god where the real (simpler, no god) cause was found later. As to god being illogical and unobservable.. that's just evading the problem in a way that IPU does. If you go about it like that, you can never prove or disprove the existence of god, and then you can't even work with probabilities. I'm beginning to hope that someone finds proof that god does exist, that would be the only way to solve the problem for good. I would be surprised, though. Also if he is so illogical and if he "purposefully does Not do what you would have expected", then why do you suppose he created life?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That's a bit problematic, it might take billions of years..
Well, that's kind of the issue. I don't see any way they can prove it, any time soon. In the meantime, it's all good science, I mean, it's good that we look at these things. I just doubt they will actually prove there is no God, they will simply do experiments that prove some basic things can happen in a controlled environment, and some people will assume it's curtains for God.
harold aptroot wrote:
Ok, well I'm not saying "he would have done things my way", but I'm asking "why only the Earth?"
What I meant by that is, 'it seems logical to me that if God existed, He would have xxx', where xxx could be, made life on other planets, not made spiders, or made all girls look like Jessica Alba. I'm accustomed to people telling me there can't be a God, because He didn't do something that seems to them like a good idea. I don't know why. I just know I'm not calling the shots.
harold aptroot wrote:
and then walk off, only to never do it again?
Because He did it the once, He didn't walk off, He's now interacting with the life He created.
harold aptroot wrote:
it's just doesn't make any sense..
Yes, that's my point. What God does, doesn't have to make sense to us, any more than it makes sense to my kids when I say they can't have ice cream before dinner and should not play on the road.
harold aptroot wrote:
Suppose god exists, why would that imply that he did anything at all?
It doesn't have to imply that, no.
harold aptroot wrote:
Couldn't he just be sitting there, taunting scientists with his elusiveness bordering on non-existence, without interfering in any way?
That is a possible case, yes.
harold aptroot wrote:
What is not meaningful about it?
I wish I could quote Scott Adams. Because it just raises more questions. Simplest according to who ? Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through. Science is great BECAUSE it takes us from simple minded explanations, to co
Okay.. This is getting interesting and I am sorry to interrupt you both. But your discussion made me think of a beautiful mail that I got few days back and I can't resist myself from printing it here. So here it is: If God exists - Why so much pain and suffering? A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer. “Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all these things.” The customer thought for a moment but didn’t respond because He didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just as he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with long, string, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkept. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber, “You know what? Barbers do not exist.” “How can you say that,” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, I am a barber and I just worked on you!” “No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did there would be no people with long dirty hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside.” “Ah, but barbers do exists! What happens is people don’t come to me.” “Exactly,” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is people do not go to Him or look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”
..Go Green..
-
You can't prove that something doesn't exist.. We can't prove that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, maybe she is really out there, but never detected - we can't know that. That doesn't mean that she exists, either. I'd say it's rather safe to assume that she does not, because that assumption does not conflict with any observed phenomena.
Christian Graus wrote:
Since when is the simplest explanation the right one ? The simplest explanation IS that God created everything, and the sky is flat, with some holes that let God's light through.
It's not really like that, you know. It was never about "the simplest explanation", but rather "the simplest of two explanation that could both be correct". Anything with god in it is not immediately irrevocably false, but there has been a great history of things being blamed on god where the real (simpler, no god) cause was found later. As to god being illogical and unobservable.. that's just evading the problem in a way that IPU does. If you go about it like that, you can never prove or disprove the existence of god, and then you can't even work with probabilities. I'm beginning to hope that someone finds proof that god does exist, that would be the only way to solve the problem for good. I would be surprised, though. Also if he is so illogical and if he "purposefully does Not do what you would have expected", then why do you suppose he created life?
harold aptroot wrote:
I'd say it's rather safe to assume that she does not, because that assumption does not conflict with any observed phenomena.
And if God was as distant, as enigmatic and as unreachable as the pink unicorn, you'd have a point.
harold aptroot wrote:
It was never about "the simplest explanation", but rather "the simplest of two explanation that could both be correct".
OK, that's fair. But, my point is, there was a time when Occam's Razor would have been applied, such as what happened to Gallileo, and the more complex explanation was found in time to be correct. That was my point.
harold aptroot wrote:
but there has been a great history of things being blamed on god where the real (simpler, no god) cause was found later.
Well, no. As I said, that depends entirely on your definition of 'simpler'. It's simpler now because we KNOW the earth is round, and that the sky is full of stars. It's simple only in hindsight.
harold aptroot wrote:
As to god being illogical and unobservable.. that's just evading the problem in a way that IPU does.
I never said that. I said His logic doesn't have to be ours. He is certainly observable.
harold aptroot wrote:
I'm beginning to hope that someone finds proof that god does exist, that would be the only way to solve the problem for good. I would be surprised, though.
Like I said, edging towards the soapbox, but, God proves Himself to the individual, not on 60 Minutes. He DOES do it in ways He defines, not in weird and wonderful ways like 'I prayed and then I found my keys'.
harold aptroot wrote:
Also if he is so illogical and if he "purposefully does Not do what you would have expected", then why do you suppose he created life?
He's perfectly logical. It's just that we sometimes don't get it, usually through a myopic viewpoint. That is, the people who claim He is illogical do so b/c He didn't do things in the way they would have liked.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I also read a number of books in recent times that were in support of free for all evolution and spontaneous life. I don't come by my views by ignoring those that oppose them.
Well, maybe you don't ignore it, but I've heard you discuss evolution and it's very obvious that you don't understand it.
Christian Graus wrote:
I agree with him that there's nothing more close minded or bigoted than a sceptic.
I completely disagree. Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
but I've heard you discuss evolution and it's very obvious that you don't understand it.
Well, that's possible. But, if so, it is obviously poorly presented in the mainstream media, because I've read a lot about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sceptics are the only ones willing to accept that they may be wrong.
Rubbish. I'm sorry, but that's just rarely true. In my experience, it's almost never true.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not ? If He has a plan, and a desire to interact with creation, why do it in more than one place ?
Ah, so you're a theist then? But I would say nothing really follows one way or the other. Are you a Christian? I think Christianity strongly tends to the view that creation is for Man but doesn't strictly imply it. I vaguely remember reading some discussion by C. S. Lewis on this.
Christian Graus wrote:
Life everywhere is simply more likely to happen if life is an accident and not something that has a plan behind it
Yes. Well, it depends what we mean by "accident." If the probability is vanishingly small then it may only have happened once. If the probability is small but reasonable then I would expect life to be everywhere. Personally, if we discount your theistic view, I think the second is more likely. I can't prove this other than by reference to the symmetry of the universe and the strangeness of life, i.e., complex events can't be explained by vanishingly small probabilities.
Kevin
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
Are you a Christian?
Yes, I am.
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
If the probability is vanishingly small then it may only have happened once.
Yes, lack of life elsewhere does not prove there is a God.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Okay.. This is getting interesting and I am sorry to interrupt you both. But your discussion made me think of a beautiful mail that I got few days back and I can't resist myself from printing it here. So here it is: If God exists - Why so much pain and suffering? A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said, “I don’t believe that God exists.” “Why do you say that?” asked the customer. “Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn’t exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed there would be neither suffering nor pain. I can’t imagine a loving God who would allow all these things.” The customer thought for a moment but didn’t respond because He didn’t want to start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just as he left the barber shop he saw a man in the street with long, string, dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkept. The customer turned back and entered the barbershop again and he said to the barber, “You know what? Barbers do not exist.” “How can you say that,” asked the surprised barber. “I am here, I am a barber and I just worked on you!” “No!” the customer exclaimed. “Barbers don’t exist because if they did there would be no people with long dirty hair and untrimmed beards like that man outside.” “Ah, but barbers do exists! What happens is people don’t come to me.” “Exactly,” affirmed the customer. “That’s the point! God, too, does exist! What happens is people do not go to Him or look for Him. That’s why there’s so much pain and suffering in the world.”
..Go Green..
The "pain and suffering" argument has never been a good one for there being no god. The question is whether it's reasonable or not to believe in god, since god is essentially unfalsifiable, and I maintain that it isn't. The choice is apparently whether or not to believe in an undetectable entity that chooses to conduct its affairs only in ways that don't require its existence.
-
The "pain and suffering" argument has never been a good one for there being no god. The question is whether it's reasonable or not to believe in god, since god is essentially unfalsifiable, and I maintain that it isn't. The choice is apparently whether or not to believe in an undetectable entity that chooses to conduct its affairs only in ways that don't require its existence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The choice is apparently whether or not to believe in an undetectable entity that chooses to conduct its affairs only in ways that don't require its existence.
Amusingly, you understand Christianity even less than I apparently understand evolution :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I don't expect it will be found, simply because I believe God created life. I don't care about the mechanism He used ( that is to say, I'm not claiming anything on that front especially ), I just think that God is needed for life to exist, therefore an infinite number of planets does not prove it is likely that there's life on any of them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I upvoted you. Not because I agree, but because I respect your right to have a contrary opinion to me. That others downvoted rather than argue seem a little unfair, so have a bonus upvote! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave