Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent design theory

TF2PRO
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 2:57:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The sun will expand, and destroy the planet. I'm glad I won't be on it when it happens. But, Stephen Hawking only gives us about 1500 more years a species anyway.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us. Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us. Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

"The universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.9 Without helium (comprising ~24% of the matter in the universe), heavy element production in stars is not possible, so that no rocky planets would have ever existed in the entire history of the universe. Likewise, the universe could not have been a much more massive than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 more massive,10 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (at 1.67x10W22;27 kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter - equal to a grain of sand) would have made life impossible! The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

What about the fact that one hasn't? What if we don't need to exist in this solar system another few billion years?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

All I can say is we are some very lucky people, and all of us should be on our way to Vegas.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:33:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

And yet here we are, walking around in t-shirts. What a lucky accident.

Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us.

Sure it makes sense. Think of all the knowledge gained through study of the universe. It makes us be bigger than ourselves, and gets us outside of focusing on our own little circle of existence.

Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

Because then atheists would be whining that our God was so wimpy that He could only create enough to support life.

What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

That the universe is so big, yet there is only one small area that is safe for us, is just too much of a coincidence. All the parameters that have to be just right, I can't buy that it's just a fluke.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:41:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Miracles are just a metaphor for lucky things. If a plane crashes and there is only one survivor, in reality, he got lucky. The religious would call it a "miracle", and it is cute, but that doesn't mean much in the real world. Someone who wins the lottery thinks it is a miracle that they won (what are the odds?), but someone has to win.


Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us. Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

"The universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.9 Without helium (comprising ~24% of the matter in the universe), heavy element production in stars is not possible, so that no rocky planets would have ever existed in the entire history of the universe. Likewise, the universe could not have been a much more massive than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 more massive,10 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (at 1.67x10W22;27 kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter - equal to a grain of sand) would have made life impossible! The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

It's perfect for life to exist, but that doesn't mean it was made for life to exist, or for life to thrive. If the constants were off just a bit, pasta couldn't exist (we wouldn't be here to make it), that doesn't mean the universe is here for pasta.

Also, In fact, Lee Smolin showed that the universe is a perfect black hole generator (out of all the possible universes you can get out of messing around with the constants, this is the best one for black hole production). In a perfect black hole generator, the possibility of life is a necessary side effect, or bi-product of such a universe. If the constants were off just slightly, we wouldn't have stars, and thus black holes.

Most of the matter in the universe goes to making black holes, not life. It is more reasonable to think the universe is here for black holes, with the possibility of life being nothing more than a necessary side-effect. Sort of like how a stained glass is a necessary side effect of using the same glass over and over again to drink Coke out of, but that doesn't mean coke and the glass exist just so that stain could be there! It is just a necessary side effect of such conditions. Similarly, the universe is here for black holes. Because that entails many stars, it entails a high probability of planets, and a probability of habitable planets rising with so many stars which only exist for the chance of becoming a black hole; life should be expected.


What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

What about the fact that one hasn't?

It took out the Dinosaurs, who once ruled the Earth. It could take us out.

What if we don't need to exist in this solar system another few billion years?

It is unlikely. Scientists say that in the year 2300, half of the planet that is habitable now won't be. Also, think about it... We don't have much time left. Regardless, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, human beings have only existed for around 100,000 - 200,000 years . That is less than a small fraction. How is this huge arena made for us? It makes no sense.


No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

All I can say is we are some very lucky people, and all of us should be on our way to Vegas.

A lottery winner is lucky, that doesn't mean they will leave a black jack table with net gain lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:33:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

And yet here we are, walking around in t-shirts. What a lucky accident.

What does t-shirts have to do with anything? Lol Yes, it is a lucky accident. Accidents happen all the time.


Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us.

Sure it makes sense. Think of all the knowledge gained through study of the universe. It makes us be bigger than ourselves, and gets us outside of focusing on our own little circle of existence.

How does it make us bigger than ourselves? We don't even know if all of our knowledge is correct. I bet the fundamental theory is so different than what we accept today.


Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

Because then atheists would be whining that our God was so wimpy that He could only create enough to support life.

Not at all. What God does, doesn't speak on what he can do.


What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

That the universe is so big, yet there is only one small area that is safe for us, is just too much of a coincidence.

How is it a coincidence? It shows that we are an accident, because if the universe was meant for life, more of it would be habitable. It shows that we got lucky! That is the most reasonable response anyway.

All the parameters that have to be just right, I can't buy that it's just a fluke.

Well I can't buy that someone made the universe for us. All the evidence suggests that is baloney.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 4:26:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:41:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Miracles are just a metaphor for lucky things. If a plane crashes and there is only one survivor, in reality, he got lucky. The religious would call it a "miracle", and it is cute, but that doesn't mean much in the real world. Someone who wins the lottery thinks it is a miracle that they won (what are the odds?), but someone has to win.

And that is the enigma. Was it luck or was it a miracle? It's impossible to know the difference, so all we can do is state an opinion, as you've clearly done. Yes, someone has to win the lottery (eventually) but since we know of only one planet with life on it then I'd say it's damned lucky/miraculous that it exists where it does.

Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us. Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

"The universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.9 Without helium (comprising ~24% of the matter in the universe), heavy element production in stars is not possible, so that no rocky planets would have ever existed in the entire history of the universe. Likewise, the universe could not have been a much more massive than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 more massive,10 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (at 1.67x10W22;27 kg/baryon equals 1.7 mg of matter - equal to a grain of sand) would have made life impossible! The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

It's perfect for life to exist, but that doesn't mean it was made for life to exist, or for life to thrive. If the constants were off just a bit, pasta couldn't exist (we wouldn't be here to make it), that doesn't mean the universe is here for pasta.

Another good "maybe." And it is because of questions like these that the riddle will never be answered by science. Since pasta is made from life (wheat, etc.) then it's just an extension of the life argument. None of us choose what to believe. We look at the facts, live our experiences, and somewhere in-between a preference emerges.

Also, In fact, Lee Smolin showed that the universe is a perfect black hole generator (out of all the possible universes you can get out of messing around with the constants, this is the best one for black hole production). In a perfect black hole generator, the possibility of life is a necessary side effect, or bi-product of such a universe. If the constants were off just slightly, we wouldn't have stars, and thus black holes.

Yes, but the latest data suggests that black-holes may be necessary to the stability of our universe. And if we didn't have stars we wouldn't have elements, and thus no chemistry. Some people look at the complexity of it all and see a great miracle. Others look and see mindless chance. If it's mindless chance then life has no value, and is certainly temporary. But none of us decide which to choose. We live our experiences and view the world around us. Some see miracles and some see mindless chance.

Most of the matter in the universe goes to making black holes, not life. It is more reasonable to think the universe is here for black holes, with the possibility of life being nothing more than a necessary side-effect. Sort of like how a stained glass is a necessary side effect of using the same glass over and over again to drink Coke out of, but that doesn't mean coke and the glass exist just so that stain could be there! It is just a necessary side effect of such conditions. Similarly, the universe is here for black holes. Because that entails many stars, it entails a high probability of planets, and a probability of habitable planets rising with so many stars which only exist for the chance of becoming a black hole; life should be expected.


What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

What about the fact that one hasn't?

It took out the Dinosaurs, who once ruled the Earth. It could take us out.

But it hasn't. The Dinos never developed the intelligence to become creators, as we have. We are the only known creators in the history of Earth, despite billions of species. On top of that, our modern intelligence is the latest major development in a long line of evolution. But I suppose that's just an accident, too?

What if we don't need to exist in this solar system another few billion years?

It is unlikely. Scientists say that in the year 2300, half of the planet that is habitable now won't be. Also, think about it... We don't have much time left. Regardless, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, human beings have only existed for around 100,000 - 200,000 years . That is less than a small fraction. How is this huge arena made for us? It makes no sense.

Yeah . . . that's precisely what I said. What if we don't need much more time in order for the history of man to run its course?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

All I can say is we are some very lucky people, and all of us should be on our way to Vegas.

A lottery winner is lucky, that doesn't mean they will leave a black jack table with net gain lol

No, a lottery winner is a certainty, as you said before. The existence of life (let alone intelligent life) isn't. In a choice between existing and not, we've won the ultimate jackpot.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 4:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Conider now that everywhere in that stadium was someone. That is, the stadium was full with a hundred thousand people, and everyone died. Everyone except, that is, you.

On the one hand we'd intuitively think we are lucky. We are the only survivor? We must have some special purpose, then, or have been chosen by the creator of the death and destruction to life on so many other places to be its heir to the stadium.

The more reasonable conclusion on more thought, especially if we see no other reason for a purpose outside our mere existence, is that we were merely lucky. Of course, merely is probably not the right word: it is fantastic we have survived from our perspective - great even! Yet it is still not evidence that we were clearly designed for the world. Only that the world suits our needs.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 4:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 4:27:36 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Conider now that everywhere in that stadium was someone. That is, the stadium was full with a hundred thousand people, and everyone died. Everyone except, that is, you.

On the one hand we'd intuitively think we are lucky. We are the only survivor? We must have some special purpose, then, or have been chosen by the creator of the death and destruction to life on so many other places to be its heir to the stadium.

The more reasonable conclusion on more thought, especially if we see no other reason for a purpose outside our mere existence, is that we were merely lucky. Of course, merely is probably not the right word: it is fantastic we have survived from our perspective - great even! Yet it is still not evidence that we were clearly designed for the world. Only that the world suits our needs.

Of course that is true. But if we were designed then we would expect the world to also be designed to "suit our needs", no? We'd expect it to contain everything we need to survive and thrive, to be located in a docile place, to be one of the obviously very rare planets with characteristics conducive to life, etc., etc. I'm not saying that our good fortune is proof of creation. I'm saying there will never be a way to prove one argument or the other.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 4:51:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:45:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:33:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

And yet here we are, walking around in t-shirts. What a lucky accident.

What does t-shirts have to do with anything? Lol Yes, it is a lucky accident. Accidents happen all the time.

T-shirts, as opposed to radiation resistance space suits with a self contained breathing apparatus.

Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us.

Sure it makes sense. Think of all the knowledge gained through study of the universe. It makes us be bigger than ourselves, and gets us outside of focusing on our own little circle of existence.

How does it make us bigger than ourselves? We don't even know if all of our knowledge is correct. I bet the fundamental theory is so different than what we accept today.

I just mean that exploring the universe makes us consider things far outside our own little world, so that we aren't so self-centered. We've left our own world and traveled elsewhere.

Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

Because then atheists would be whining that our God was so wimpy that He could only create enough to support life.

Not at all. What God does, doesn't speak on what he can do.

Very good point.

What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

That the universe is so big, yet there is only one small area that is safe for us, is just too much of a coincidence.

How is it a coincidence? It shows that we are an accident, because if the universe was meant for life, more of it would be habitable. It shows that we got lucky! That is the most reasonable response anyway.

All the parameters that have to be just right, I can't buy that it's just a fluke.

Well I can't buy that someone made the universe for us. All the evidence suggests that is baloney.

We have the same evidence and the more we learn, the more convinced we are that it isn't just a fluke. I think in the end, it all just comes down to how you choose to view the evidence.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:23:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:47:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Also, the idea that we are an accident has more predictive power than the God hypothesis.

That's irrelevant to which is actually true.
yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:41:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think in the end, it all just comes down to how you choose to view the evidence.

I agree.

When looking at the evidence, not presupposing a god; would we think it probable that this world was made for us? In my opinion, no. I would expect it to be much more.. easy to live in. Without so many struggles to overcome (disease, drought, radiation, cancer, etc.) I would not have expected this god to have put such an effort in making a huge universe whereas it could have invested its time/energy/allbeingness into creating a better habitat for us. However, if one does presuppose a god, one can always fit the data to ones expectations (I won't post examples for I'm afraid to offend anyone, but I trust that you know what I mean.)

Personally, I find it highly doubtful that a god would really have bothered for humans (though they are slightly remarkable compared to other mammals - as far as we know. Must add that we tend to be arrogant as well, so we might be underestimating the rest of the world). The world is just so huge and I think it's likely that there are much more interesting species on distant planets that we haven't found out about yet. However, this does the existence of a creator.

Who knows?
Can we ever find out?
Why does it matter so much to us?

One thing I'm sure about and that's that we humans will never agree on this matter ;)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:43:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 4:38:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 4:27:36 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

If I was in a stadium that was 99.99% lethal to life yet found myself alive, I would tend to think of that as a miracle, not luck.

Conider now that everywhere in that stadium was someone. That is, the stadium was full with a hundred thousand people, and everyone died. Everyone except, that is, you.

On the one hand we'd intuitively think we are lucky. We are the only survivor? We must have some special purpose, then, or have been chosen by the creator of the death and destruction to life on so many other places to be its heir to the stadium.

The more reasonable conclusion on more thought, especially if we see no other reason for a purpose outside our mere existence, is that we were merely lucky. Of course, merely is probably not the right word: it is fantastic we have survived from our perspective - great even! Yet it is still not evidence that we were clearly designed for the world. Only that the world suits our needs.

Of course that is true. But if we were designed then we would expect the world to also be designed to "suit our needs", no? We'd expect it to contain everything we need to survive and thrive, to be located in a docile place, to be one of the obviously very rare planets with characteristics conducive to life, etc., etc. I'm not saying that our good fortune is proof of creation. I'm saying there will never be a way to prove one argument or the other.

If we were crafted by a limited alien species, say, we'd expect to be in the situation we are in: some random planet in the middle of nowhere special, except that we are incredibly lucky to be in this said location. Of course, the alien hypothesis has its own problems independent of the god hypothesis that make me prefer a more parsimonious chance hypothesis, but still.

However, if we were crafted alongside the universe by a deity, we are in a particularly strange situation with ludicrous amounts of danger, hostility, and pure cruel violence. Further, we are in a universe surrounded by even more ludicrous amounts of waste, with billions of bodies in space with no purpose except to pretty the sky and occasionally threaten us with global unstoppable death. This hardly seems something a deity would create, and gives me I feel not only reason to reject the finely tuned argument, but evidence against the existence of a universe-creating deity.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:44:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 5:41:45 PM, yesuke wrote:
I think in the end, it all just comes down to how you choose to view the evidence.

I agree.

When looking at the evidence, not presupposing a god; would we think it probable that this world was made for us? In my opinion, no. I would expect it to be much more.. easy to live in. Without so many struggles to overcome (disease, drought, radiation, cancer, etc.) I would not have expected this god to have put such an effort in making a huge universe whereas it could have invested its time/energy/allbeingness into creating a better habitat for us. However, if one does presuppose a god, one can always fit the data to ones expectations (I won't post examples for I'm afraid to offend anyone, but I trust that you know what I mean.)

Personally, I find it highly doubtful that a god would really have bothered for humans (though they are slightly remarkable compared to other mammals - as far as we know. Must add that we tend to be arrogant as well, so we might be underestimating the rest of the world). The world is just so huge and I think it's likely that there are much more interesting species on distant planets that we haven't found out about yet. However, this does the existence of a creator.

Who knows?
Can we ever find out?
Why does it matter so much to us?

One thing I'm sure about and that's that we humans will never agree on this matter ;)

Woops, typo:
"However, this does [not exclude] the existence of a creator"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 4:26:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:41:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:26:37 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:


And that is the enigma. Was it luck or was it a miracle? It's impossible to know the difference, so all we can do is state an opinion, as you've clearly done. Yes, someone has to win the lottery (eventually) but since we know of only one planet with life on it then I'd say it's damned lucky/miraculous that it exists where it does.

It's not that lucky. In a universe this old and this large, something as improbable as abiogenesis is bound to happen eventually. If you have enough natural chemestry sets going on simultaneously (which space is needed for), and enough time, a self-replicating molecule becomes more and more probable. Evolution just takes over from there.


Another good "maybe." And it is because of questions like these that the riddle will never be answered by science.

Why not?

Since pasta is made from life (wheat, etc.) then it's just an extension of the life argument.

Since life is just an extension of Earth like planets, maybe the universe is here for Earth like planets, and not life? This is the problem. Just because if things were slightly different, life couldn't form, that doesn't mean life is special. We could just be a necessary bi-product of the real "end" the universe is in for.

None of us choose what to believe. We look at the facts, live our experiences, and somewhere in-between a preference emerges.

I actually prefer Theism. I just see no good reasons yet to hold it true.


Also, In fact, Lee Smolin showed that the universe is a perfect black hole generator (out of all the possible universes you can get out of messing around with the constants, this is the best one for black hole production). In a perfect black hole generator, the possibility of life is a necessary side effect, or bi-product of such a universe. If the constants were off just slightly, we wouldn't have stars, and thus black holes.

Yes, but the latest data suggests that black-holes may be necessary to the stability of our universe.

So? That doesn't negate anything I said.

And if we didn't have stars we wouldn't have elements, and thus no chemistry.

Exactly! The universe is here to produce massive amounts of black holes, and chemestry is a necessary bi-product of that. That doesn't mean the universe is here for chemistry.

Some people look at the complexity of it all and see a great miracle.

Well, there is no good reason to believe that.

Others look and see mindless chance.

That's what it seems like.

If it's mindless chance then life has no value, and is certainly temporary.

Sure. So?

But none of us decide which to choose. We live our experiences and view the world around us. Some see miracles and some see mindless chance.

The problem is, we have good reason to believe it is mindless chance, due to how hostile the universe is. It seems that we lucked out. If the universe is here for us, why is nature hell bent on our destruction? Why is the universe so deadly? Also, us being an accident better explains the size and age of the universe than Theism.

Either way, my point is that a universe that is a perfect black hole generator, has to have the possibility of life as a necessary bi-product. If one thing was changed, we couldn't be here, but that doesn't mean we are the object of why everything is here.

Most of the matter in the universe goes into making black holes. Barely any of it (as far as we know), goes to making life. This makes it more reasonable to believe the universe is here to produce black holes, with us being a necessary side effect, than it is to believe the universe is here for us.


Most of the matter in the universe goes to making black holes, not life. It is more reasonable to think the universe is here for black holes, with the possibility of life being nothing more than a necessary side-effect. Sort of like how a stained glass is a necessary side effect of using the same glass over and over again to drink Coke out of, but that doesn't mean coke and the glass exist just so that stain could be there! It is just a necessary side effect of such conditions. Similarly, the universe is here for black holes. Because that entails many stars, it entails a high probability of planets, and a probability of habitable planets rising with so many stars which only exist for the chance of becoming a black hole; life should be expected.


What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

What about the fact that one hasn't?

It took out the Dinosaurs, who once ruled the Earth. It could take us out.

But it hasn't. The Dinos never developed the intelligence to become creators, as we have.

So? That was 65, million years ago. Who is to say they wouldn't have?

We are the only known creators in the history of Earth, despite billions of species.

Not true. Chimps have intelligence, self-awareness and can create tools. We are just the most advanced out of an advanced group (apes). Bacteria have been around longer than we have, and cockroaches are actually more evolved than us. They seem more important to any creator than us. If a nuke went off, they would survive; we wouldn't, and they have been around longer than us, and will probably be around after we go extinct.

On top of that, our modern intelligence is the latest major development in a long line of evolution. But I suppose that's just an accident, too?

It is not really an accident. We were selected naturally to have this intelligence, as it helped our kind survive more in our environments.


What if we don't need to exist in this solar system another few billion years?

It is unlikely. Scientists say that in the year 2300, half of the planet that is habitable now won't be. Also, think about it... We don't have much time left. Regardless, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, human beings have only existed for around 100,000 - 200,000 years . That is less than a small fraction. How is this huge arena made for us? It makes no sense.

Yeah . . . that's precisely what I said. What if we don't need much more time in order for the history of man to run its course?

We probably don't. Which is why it is hard to believe all of this is here for us! That is like a 10 hour movie being made just for the split second near the beginning. It makes on sense.


No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

All I can say is we are some very lucky people, and all of us should be on our way to Vegas.

A lottery winner is lucky, that doesn't mean they will leave a black jack table with net gain lol

No, a lottery winner is a certainty, as you said before. The existence of life (let alone intelligent life) isn't. In a choice between existing and not, we've won the ultimate jackpot.

In a universe where life is a possibility, life is inevitable given enough space and time for natural chemistry sets to produce the first self-replicating molecule.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 4:51:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:45:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:33:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 3:10:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:48:03 PM, TF2PRO wrote:
Hi does anyone have any solid argument's against the notion that our universe was designed just for us.Im really in need of some.
Thanks

99.99% of the universe is deadly radiation that is lethal to life. If you walk stadium, and 99.99% of it is absolutely lethal to life, you would have to be insane to think the stadium was designed for life. Any life that lived there just got lucky.

And yet here we are, walking around in t-shirts. What a lucky accident.

What does t-shirts have to do with anything? Lol Yes, it is a lucky accident. Accidents happen all the time.

T-shirts, as opposed to radiation resistance space suits with a self contained breathing apparatus.

Ya, it is called an atmosphere. This atmosphere doesn't permeate the universe Medic lol 99.99999999% of it is a deadly radiation filled vacuum which is absolutely lethal to life. If someone shows you an area, and 99.999999% of it is deadly to life, and life could have never lived there, who in their right mind would say the area was made for life? That is outrageous. This universe is a death trap.


Also, the size and scope of the universe. Why is the universe so big if it was made for us? Why all the dead planets? Dead solar systems, and dead galaxies? None of this makes sense if the universe was here for us.

Sure it makes sense. Think of all the knowledge gained through study of the universe. It makes us be bigger than ourselves, and gets us outside of focusing on our own little circle of existence.

How does it make us bigger than ourselves? We don't even know if all of our knowledge is correct. I bet the fundamental theory is so different than what we accept today.

I just mean that exploring the universe makes us consider things far outside our own little world, so that we aren't so self-centered. We've left our own world and traveled elsewhere.

Which is my point. We are not special, or the "end" for which this universe exists.


Why not just a solar system, or just the Earth, sun and moon?

Because then atheists would be whining that our God was so wimpy that He could only create enough to support life.

Not at all. What God does, doesn't speak on what he can do.

Very good point.

What about the fact that an asteroid could take us out any second, or that the sun will expand and swallow us up, or all the disease, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, and other things which causes mass death on people. Why would anybody create the universe for us and include these things?

No, it is clear we are a lucky accident who is barely surviving on this knife edge. Sort of like the flower that grows in the middle of a city where a nuke went off. We are a fluke, or "glitch" of nature it seems like. It certainly doesn't seem like the universe was made for us. Not by a long shot.

That the universe is so big, yet there is only one small area that is safe for us, is just too much of a coincidence.

How is it a coincidence? It shows that we are an accident, because if the universe was meant for life, more of it would be habitable. It shows that we got lucky! That is the most reasonable response anyway.

All the parameters that have to be just right, I can't buy that it's just a fluke.

Well I can't buy that someone made the universe for us. All the evidence suggests that is baloney.

We have the same evidence and the more we learn, the more convinced we are that it isn't just a fluke.

Who is "we"? Speak for yourself. The hypothesis that we are an accident explains the features of reality that we observe better than the idea that we were created by some benevolent God. I will gladly debate that resolution with you.

That's irrelevant to which is actually true.

False. If science has taught us anything, it is that theories with more predictive power usually end up being true.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:14:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Accidents are things that "shouldn't happen". Basically, things that go away from the norm. People drive their cars on the road all the time just fine, but when a crash happens, it is an accident because it goes against the norm. If we look at the universe, you will see that we go against the norm (all other objects made of matter don't self-replicate and show signs of life that we do). This suggests that we "shouldn't be here", that this place wasn't made for us. That was are an accident. I think that makes the most sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Life is sort of a freak of nature, a glitch in the regularly scheduled programing of matter. This screams accident to me, not the work of design.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:17:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
ID is philosophy, not science. But lets roll regardless.

One thing I noticed is the lack of scope: "God would not have created this". You are not to decide this as it is simple an argument from ignorance. If we assume that God is omniscient, then we cannot judge whether something is unwise unless we are omniscient too.
Stars could be there to guide us and make us think about the universe. Hardships could be there to give us incentive to constantly improve and form communities; without feeling the pain of ignorance, we wouldn't have sought knowledge.

Ultimately, if there is no creator then there is no purpose for our existence. Our compassion, conscious, and altruistic nature would all be illogical and against nature itself. Unless they have a value, and that value can only come from a creator. It is impossible (you are welcome to try) to logically prove the statement: "Human beings are equal" or support human rights if the universe is based on randomness.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:18:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is reasonable to consider that something vastly superior to man's current capabilities, has led to various ' Concepts ' such as a god/Intelligent Designer.

There is however absolutely NOTHING legitimate to suggest that which is responsible is a biblical god(s)

ALL religions appear to make claim that their own personal Creator is the only option!

My Concept is that Susan the Alien is responsible and best of all she isn't the ' Jealous type ' like the biblical Story book god.

Of course my Concept could be wrong, but so far there is absolutely NO evidence that it is!

Conversely, that can not be legitimately said of ALL Current Religions!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:17:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
ID is philosophy, not science. But lets roll regardless.


One thing I noticed is the lack of scope: "God would not have created this". You are not to decide this as it is simple an argument from ignorance.

It's not an argument based on ignorance, but knowledge. God has certain essential attributes, and some actions can either coincide with those attributes, but he cannot do anything that contradicts his attributes. Thus, we can reasonably conclude things that we he would do and not do based on that criteria.

If we assume that God is omniscient, then we cannot judge whether something is unwise unless we are omniscient too.

That is not true. One may argue that they can know raping a child is bad, even if we are not omniscient.

Stars could be there to guide us and make us think about the universe.

Too bad there are probably more stars than we could ever have access too. Regardless, I am not saying that a large an old universe is incompatible with theism, just that it is better explained by the idea that we are an accident.

Hardships could be there to give us incentive to constantly improve and form communities

A perfect being wouldn't put us in situations that need improving. What stems from a perfect being must also be perfect, so nothing that stems from him could need improving.

; without feeling the pain of ignorance, we wouldn't have sought knowledge.

Then there is no reason to stop rape then. If a rape happens, God might have some reason for it, who knows?. This leaves you with what they call Moral Paralysis. It is an untenable position, because then we cannot say that anything is moral or immoral.


Ultimately, if there is no creator then there is no purpose for our existence.

So?

Our compassion, conscious, and altruistic nature would all be illogical and against nature itself.

How would it be illogical? Morality (compassion ect.) is a useful tool for collective survival (same with consciousness in apes), that fits perfectly with a naturalistic picture.

Unless they have a value, and that value can only come from a creator.

Who says we have cosmic value like that? Perhaps we only value each other collectively, and that is the close to valuable we are going to get.

It is impossible (you are welcome to try) to logically prove the statement: "Human beings are equal" or support human rights if the universe is based on randomness.

Who says the universe is based on randomness, if it isn't based in a creator? That is a false-dichtomy.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Accidents are things that "shouldn't happen". Basically, things that go away from the norm. People drive their cars on the road all the time just fine, but when a crash happens, it is an accident because it goes against the norm. If we look at the universe, you will see that we go against the norm (all other objects made of matter don't self-replicate and show signs of life that we do). This suggests that we "shouldn't be here", that this place wasn't made for us. That was are an accident. I think that makes the most sense.

That implies that nothing at all have a purpose.
What about cause and effect relations, like when hydrogen joins with oxygen?
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:42:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why would an omnipotent god require perfect conditions for life, that is nonsense.
Abiogenesis absolutely requires such an omnipotent god has absolutely no need of it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:32:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Accidents are things that "shouldn't happen". Basically, things that go away from the norm. People drive their cars on the road all the time just fine, but when a crash happens, it is an accident because it goes against the norm. If we look at the universe, you will see that we go against the norm (all other objects made of matter don't self-replicate and show signs of life that we do). This suggests that we "shouldn't be here", that this place wasn't made for us. That was are an accident. I think that makes the most sense.

That implies that nothing at all have a purpose.
What about cause and effect relations, like when hydrogen joins with oxygen?

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless" - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize winner)
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:06:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:29:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:17:57 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
ID is philosophy, not science. But lets roll regardless.


One thing I noticed is the lack of scope: "God would not have created this". You are not to decide this as it is simple an argument from ignorance.

It's not an argument based on ignorance, but knowledge. God has certain essential attributes, and some actions can either coincide with those attributes, but he cannot do anything that contradicts his attributes. Thus, we can reasonably conclude things that we he would do and not do based on that criteria.

And we have limited understanding of those attributes. Can you list them for me?

If we assume that God is omniscient, then we cannot judge whether something is unwise unless we are omniscient too.

That is not true. One may argue that they can know raping a child is bad, even if we are not omniscient.

And the one raping a child may argue that it is not bad via. survival of the fittest. What differentiates between someone's opinion and makes it more valuable than the other's?

Stars could be there to guide us and make us think about the universe.

Too bad there are probably more stars than we could ever have access too. Regardless, I am not saying that a large an old universe is incompatible with theism, just that it is better explained by the idea that we are an accident.

And yet, when you think about the tremulousness speed they travel at while they appear static to us. Regardless, amazing stuff.
How can randomness have a predictive power when it can't be falsified?

Hardships could be there to give us incentive to constantly improve and form communities

A perfect being wouldn't put us in situations that need improving. What stems from a perfect being must also be perfect, so nothing that stems from him could need improving.

Perfect to fulfill it's purpose. There is no reason for an eternal happiness perfect world to be the purpose of this life. The traditional description of God is also wise and fair. Would you like to have someone who would mass-rape be treated equally to you?

; without feeling the pain of ignorance, we wouldn't have sought knowledge.

Then there is no reason to stop rape then. If a rape happens, God might have some reason for it, who knows?. This leaves you with what they call Moral Paralysis. It is an untenable position, because then we cannot say that anything is moral or immoral.

The ignorance/knowledge was one example: Insecurity/comfort, injustice/justice, and so forth.
Without a creator, any logical morality would have paralysis. When you think about it, what would be the source of morality? Evolution? Social pressure?

If it is evolution, then there is surely nothing wrong with survival of the fittest. Perhaps future generations will evolve a sense of morality that supports rape, and perhaps the bad guy developed a different sense of morality than you that supports murdering people who irritates him. How can we judge something as absolutely wrong?

If it is social pressure, then what if the Nazis won and made a huge propaganda campaign to children? If it is successful, then most of the next generation will believe that Hitler is the greatest person ever.


Ultimately, if there is no creator then there is no purpose for our existence.

So?
So life is too short to waste. Is helping others over self a waste?


Our compassion, conscious, and altruistic nature would all be illogical and against nature itself.

How would it be illogical? Morality (compassion ect.) is a useful tool for collective survival (same with consciousness in apes), that fits perfectly with a naturalistic picture.

Lets say you are visiting a far away community that is hostile to a degree to your own. You happen to be in a store with an extremely valuable object with 0% chance to get caught. Is there any naturalistic logical reason to not steal it?

Lets say you are a soldier who landed on a captured enemy island. Some of your squad went to gang rape a woman and invited you in. Is there a logical naturalistic reason to oppose them?

Unless they have a value, and that value can only come from a creator.

Who says we have cosmic value like that? Perhaps we only value each other collectively, and that is the close to valuable we are going to get.

I was referring to the actions. Can you inform me of the value of self-sacrifice?

It is impossible (you are welcome to try) to logically prove the statement: "Human beings are equal" or support human rights if the universe is based on randomness.

Who says the universe is based on randomness, if it isn't based in a creator? That is a false-dichtomy.

That is the impression I got from "A collection of accidents". However, my point stands: There is no logical reason yet for the notion that human beings are equal or the existence of human rights based on naturalism.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:17:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:59:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:32:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Accidents are things that "shouldn't happen". Basically, things that go away from the norm. People drive their cars on the road all the time just fine, but when a crash happens, it is an accident because it goes against the norm. If we look at the universe, you will see that we go against the norm (all other objects made of matter don't self-replicate and show signs of life that we do). This suggests that we "shouldn't be here", that this place wasn't made for us. That was are an accident. I think that makes the most sense.

That implies that nothing at all have a purpose.
What about cause and effect relations, like when hydrogen joins with oxygen?

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless" - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize winner)

"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher" -Albert Einstein (U know him right?)

Well, I guess that is what scientism does for you...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:18:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:17:55 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:59:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:32:11 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 12/27/2013 6:14:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Accidents are things that "shouldn't happen". Basically, things that go away from the norm. People drive their cars on the road all the time just fine, but when a crash happens, it is an accident because it goes against the norm. If we look at the universe, you will see that we go against the norm (all other objects made of matter don't self-replicate and show signs of life that we do). This suggests that we "shouldn't be here", that this place wasn't made for us. That was are an accident. I think that makes the most sense.

That implies that nothing at all have a purpose.
What about cause and effect relations, like when hydrogen joins with oxygen?

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless" - Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize winner)


"It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher" -Albert Einstein (U know him right?)

Well, I guess that is what scientism does for you...

Ironically, "It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher" is philosophical claim, made by a man of science lol How ironic....