Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Agnosticism

TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2009 10:19:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So...who here is a silly agnostic? And after you proclaim your agnosticism, could you please give me an explanation of why you're an agnostic?

Frankly, I find the position of atheist much more tenable than agnosticism.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god. Atheistic in a practical sense, - until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with the conclusion that no god exists.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 1:05:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/12/2009 10:19:00 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
So...who here is a silly agnostic? And after you proclaim your agnosticism, could you please give me an explanation of why you're an agnostic?

Frankly, I find the position of atheist much more tenable than agnosticism.

'Tis fun to note both Dawkins and Hitchens proclaim agnosticism in terms of a deities existence. :D
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 1:02:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with :the conclusion that no god exists.

Jesus made his presence known. Jesus can't made his presence known everywhere on Earth for every generation.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 1:22:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 1:02:37 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with :the conclusion that no god exists.

Jesus made his presence known. Jesus can't made his presence known everywhere on Earth for every generation.

How many sources do we have that suggest Jesus existed at all?
Even if he existed, why should we believe what he said?
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 1:26:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 1:22:43 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 1/13/2009 1:02:37 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with :the conclusion that no god exists.

Jesus made his presence known. Jesus can't made his presence known everywhere on Earth for every generation.

How many sources do we have that suggest Jesus existed at all?

A lot, so much that modern scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer. They accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Even if he existed, why should we believe what he said?

It's your choice. We can't force you to believe in it.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 4:41:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god.

But whoever said you had to prove there is no god beyond the shadow of a doubt, aka certainty? Why does God's existence have to be proven or disproven in certainty? The answer is it doesn't need to.

For example, would you be an agnosti-fairyist? Sure, you could say there is no evidence for fairies, but isn't there STILL a possibility that they exist? Maybe they live on distant worlds, or perhaps they live among as as human doppelgangers. There is no way to disprove fairies with certainty (without omniscience) as is for God. However, the probability of a fairy or a God existing is very low, which is why it's rational to disbelieve in a God.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 4:46:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
However, the probability of a fairy or a God existing is very low, which is why it's :rational to disbelieve in a God.

The probability of a universe without fine-tuning is 1 out of 1,000,000^1000.
The probability of a spontaneous generation by sheer chance is 1 out of 1,000,000^1000.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 5:12:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The probability of a universe without fine-tuning is 1 out of 1,000,000^1000.
The probability of a spontaneous generation by sheer chance is 1 out of 1,000,000^1000.

Many calculations of fine-tuning arguments are wrong/lacking in evidence/enormously off/etc. and the argument itself fails on account of anthropic reasoning.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 5:20:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 4:41:10 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god.

But whoever said you had to prove there is no god beyond the shadow of a doubt, aka certainty?

The word Atheist did. The prefix A means no, not probably no. If used without a qualifier, then, well-- A is A.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 5:27:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 4:41:10 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god.

But whoever said you had to prove there is no god beyond the shadow of a doubt, aka certainty? Why does God's existence have to be proven or disproven in certainty? The answer is it doesn't need to.

For example, would you be an agnosti-fairyist? Sure, you could say there is no evidence for fairies, but isn't there STILL a possibility that they exist? Maybe they live on distant worlds, or perhaps they live among as as human doppelgangers. There is no way to disprove fairies with certainty (without omniscience) as is for God. However, the probability of a fairy or a God existing is very low, which is why it's rational to disbelieve in a God.

We all are agnostic in that sense. I don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist. But I do claim to disbelieve in the current conceptions.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 5:32:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 5:20:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2009 4:41:10 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god.

But whoever said you had to prove there is no god beyond the shadow of a doubt, aka certainty?

The word Atheist did. The prefix A means no, not probably no. If used without a qualifier, then, well-- A is A.

The prefix means without, also, which is what this. I am without belief. The word says nothing about proof. It is only a position on theism. (with or without proof) Say God was REAL. You can show every reason to believe, give undeniable PROOF, and one could still be an atheist. But once he is educated in the facts of God, he would be a gnostic atheist.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 5:55:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 1:02:37 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with :the conclusion that no god exists.

Jesus made his presence known. Jesus can't made his presence known everywhere on Earth for every generation.
Then only those generations have a good reason to think there's a God.
All we're left with is stories.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:15:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 6:06:40 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
We're left with stories of historical people such as Alexander the Great. Why should we believe them?
The more extreme a claim is, the more evidence it requires to warrant belief. Jesus is a very extreme claim - he violates the laws of physics, is supposedly divine, etc.

Regarding Alex - we have sufficient evidence that the stories about him are true. Corraborated evidence from trusted historians, probably archaeological evidence, etc.

Further, the tales of Jesus were written long after his death - they were likely exaggerations of actual events, etc - just like most other myths.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:19:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 6:06:40 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
We're left with stories of historical people such as Alexander the Great. Why should we believe them?

Nobody worships Alex, dude.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:23:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Are you agnostic atheist because you don't believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because you don't claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:33:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 6:23:13 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
Are you agnostic atheist because you don't believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because you don't claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist?
Don't know who you were addressing, but for me it's a little more specific [though that definition does fit].
I believe that there is no God, but I don't know.
jjmd280
Posts: 209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:45:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 6:23:13 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
Are you agnostic atheist because you don't believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because you don't claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist?

As clear as I can be - I do not KNOW if there is a God, but I lack the belief that God (as represented in religion) exists.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 6:52:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Many calculations of fine-tuning arguments are wrong/lacking in :evidence/enormously off/etc. and the argument itself fails on account of anthropic reasoning.

Oh yeah, it's 50% or more that another planet is the same distance far from the sun as Earth. Therefore, we should see intelligent life everywhere. Say hello to the aliens in Mars.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 7:14:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 6:52:54 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
Many calculations of fine-tuning arguments are wrong/lacking in :evidence/enormously off/etc. and the argument itself fails on account of anthropic reasoning.

Oh yeah, it's 50% or more that another planet is the same distance far from the sun as Earth. Therefore, we should see intelligent life everywhere. Say hello to the aliens in Mars.

Alright, FIRST: Distance from a star is not the only prerequisite for life to arise. It likely depends on a whole host of conditions being met. Even so, a planet would NOT have to be the same distance from a star as the Earth is. The significant variable is heat. Heat can come from a variety of places - directly from the sun, from geothermal vents, etc.
Further, to assume that ONLY our type of life could possibly ever exist is retarded. It's possible that other types of life could arise that would require less or more heat. Seeing that our life came about here, it's no surprise that it required the conditions that were here - that does not mean life cannot happen in other conditions by other means.

SECOND: If there was intelligent life in the universe, it would be SO unlikely that we would have found it by now. First, the universe is HUGE. Second, it is possible that intelligent lifeforms tend to destroy themselves once they reach a certain level of intelligence. Heck, if we had more religious fanatics who wanted the apocolypse to come, we might already be extinct. To EXPECT that intelligent life would survive long enough to what... do intergalactic space travel [if that's even possible]... is a bit ridiculous. If other intelligent life in the universe is about as advanced or less advanced than us, then we would not really expect to see any of it at this point in time.

THIRD: Like he said, these arguments are invalid due to anthropic reasoning. You're trying to calculate the likelihood of life coming about with no known information. However, what you should be trying to calculate is the probability of life coming about GIVEN that there is currently life on earth, just like you would be calculating it GIVEN all your other known variables, like heat, elemental makeup, speed of rotation, distance of orbit, etc.
Not to mention, all your statistics are completely made up.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 7:44:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 7:14:03 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 1/13/2009 6:52:54 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
Many calculations of fine-tuning arguments are wrong/lacking in :evidence/enormously off/etc. and the argument itself fails on account of anthropic reasoning.

Oh yeah, it's 50% or more that another planet is the same distance far from the sun as Earth. Therefore, we should see intelligent life everywhere. Say hello to the aliens in Mars.

Alright, FIRST: Distance from a star is not the only prerequisite for life to arise. It :likely depends on a whole host of conditions being met.
Correct, this means that the probability of a planet suitable for life is low. Proved by the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
Even so, a planet would NOT have to be the same distance from a star as the :Earth is. The significant variable is heat. Heat can come from a variety of places - :directly from the sun, from geothermal vents, etc.
Yet, a planet needs heat from the sun to be suitable for life. Otherwise, why couldn't Mars sustain life.
Further, to assume that ONLY our type of life could possibly ever exist is retarded.
There's only evidence that only our type of life existed. There's no evidence that disproves it which is comparable to no evidence that suggest that dinosaurs fossils are only 3000 years old.
It's possible that other types of life could arise that would require less or more :heat. Seeing that our life came about here, it's no surprise that it required the :conditions that were here - that does not mean life cannot happen in other :conditions by other means.
There's no evidence that disproves that only our life existed. Otherwise, why don't different types of life live on Mars, then?
SECOND: If there was intelligent life in the universe, it would be SO unlikely that :we would have found it by now.
First, the universe is HUGE. Second, it is possible that intelligent lifeforms tend to :destroy themselves once they reach a certain level of intelligence. Heck, if we had :more religious fanatics who wanted the apocolypse to come, we might already be :extinct. To EXPECT that intelligent life would survive long enough to what... do :intergalactic space travel [if that's even possible]... is a bit ridiculous. If other :intelligent life in the universe is about as advanced or less advanced than us, then :we would not really expect to see any of it at this point in time.
We have various detection methods such as astrometry, radial velocity, pulsar timing, transit method, gravitational microlensing, circumstellar disks, direct imaging, Observations from space, eclipsing binary minima timing, Orbital phase reflected light variations, and polarimetry to detect advanced civilizations.
THIRD: Like he said, these arguments are invalid due to anthropic reasoning. You're trying to calculate the likelihood of life coming about with no known information.
Yes, I'm calculating the likelihood of our life on Earth with the information that Earth has. If other types of life can exist that doesn't require the conditions that we do, they can live on Mars. Mars only contain microbes and bacteria, not intelligent life. Why not? Why don't intelligent life that do not require our conditions of life live on Mars?
However, what you should be trying to calculate is the probability of life coming :about GIVEN that there is currently life on earth, just like you would be calculating :it GIVEN all your other known variables, like heat, elemental makeup, speed of :rotation, distance of orbit, etc.
I am, giving the variables of life on Earth, to calculate the probability of our life that can exist on other planets.
If other types of intelligent life exists, then given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. However, this seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.
Not to mention, all your statistics are completely made up.
My statistics have been estimated by the Rare Earth Hypothesis and the improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 8:42:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 7:44:38 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 1/13/2009 7:14:03 PM, beem0r wrote:
Alright, FIRST: Distance from a star is not the only prerequisite for life to arise. It :likely depends on a whole host of conditions being met.
Correct, this means that the probability of a planet suitable for life is low. Proved by the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
Nothing is PROVEN by a HYPOTHESIS. And sure, the earth is rare. So is every other planet.

Even so, a planet would NOT have to be the same distance from a star as the :Earth is. The significant variable is heat. Heat can come from a variety of places - :directly from the sun, from geothermal vents, etc.
Yet, a planet needs heat from the sun to be suitable for life. Otherwise, why couldn't Mars sustain life.
A planet does not need heat from "the sun" to sustain life. It is reasonable to assume, however, that life does need heat from _somewhere_, be it from the sun, from another star, from geothermal vents, etc.
Unless, of course, life could exist that did not require very much heat, which is a maybe.

Further, to assume that ONLY our type of life could possibly ever exist is retarded.
There's only evidence that only our type of life existed. There's no evidence that disproves it which is comparable to no evidence that suggest that dinosaurs fossils are only 3000 years old.
Oh, that's grand. So you, a firm believer in christianity, are saying that a lack of proof that X exists means that X does not exist. [X being any life that is inherently different from the type of life we see on this planet] That's priceless.
Unless other forms of life were VERY COMMON, we would not expect to see any examples of them.

It's possible that other types of life could arise that would require less or more :heat. Seeing that our life came about here, it's no surprise that it required the :conditions that were here - that does not mean life cannot happen in other :conditions by other means.
There's no evidence that disproves that only our life existed. Otherwise, why don't different types of life live on Mars, then?
Wow. Life is not common. The only reason we would expect to see life on two planets in a row is if life was VERY, VERY common. Mars, like most planets, does not seem to be conducive to abiogenesis.

SECOND: If there was intelligent life in the universe, it would be SO unlikely that :we would have found it by now.
First, the universe is HUGE. Second, it is possible that intelligent lifeforms tend to :destroy themselves once they reach a certain level of intelligence. Heck, if we had :more religious fanatics who wanted the apocolypse to come, we might already be :extinct. To EXPECT that intelligent life would survive long enough to what... do :intergalactic space travel [if that's even possible]... is a bit ridiculous. If other :intelligent life in the universe is about as advanced or less advanced than us, then :we would not really expect to see any of it at this point in time.
We have various detection methods such as astrometry, radial velocity, pulsar timing, transit method, gravitational microlensing, circumstellar disks, direct imaging, Observations from space, eclipsing binary minima timing, Orbital phase reflected light variations, and polarimetry to detect advanced civilizations.
And those would help us see life in our tiny little pocket of the universe. Life is not SO common that we expect to see it everywhere we look.

THIRD: Like he said, these arguments are invalid due to anthropic reasoning. You're trying to calculate the likelihood of life coming about with no known information.
Yes, I'm calculating the likelihood of our life on Earth with the information that Earth has. If other types of life can exist that doesn't require the conditions that we do, they can live on Mars. Mars only contain microbes and bacteria, not intelligent life. Why not? Why don't intelligent life that do not require our conditions of life live on Mars?
That's not what I meant. I meant that you are not considering the fact of human existence as one of your givens.
Look up the anthropic principle. My wording was vague, and you misunderstood me, I think.

However, what you should be trying to calculate is the probability of life coming :about GIVEN that there is currently life on earth, just like you would be calculating :it GIVEN all your other known variables, like heat, elemental makeup, speed of :rotation, distance of orbit, etc.
I am, giving the variables of life on Earth, to calculate the probability of our life that can exist on other planets.
And what use does that do? Science doesn't say that life should exist everywhere or nowhere. Further, you don't know the probability that life would come about on other planets - you don't even know how it came about on this one!

If other types of intelligent life exists, then given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. However, this seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.
Why would the earth be typical? First of all, no planet is 'typical.' Second, if life is rare, which seems to be true, then one would not expect it to come about on 'typical' planets.
Not to mention, all your statistics are completely made up.
My statistics have been estimated by the Rare Earth Hypothesis and the improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
Right. I didn't say you made them up, those people you took them from did. We don't know the chance of life coming about - we would need much more data to determine that.

Further, I strongly dislike your ridiculous tactics. You've set up a false dichotomy - either life is SO rare that we shouldn't see it come about naturally ever, or it's so common that we should be able to see other instances of it in our relatively small bubble of the universe. Sorry, but there's plenty of ground in between. Perhaps the average instances of life coming about in a universe of our age is 10. If it were only 10, would we really expect to be so close as to see one of the other nine? And heck, maybe the average number is 1, or maybe even lower. "A universe with life is so rare that only a divine intelligence could have made one" is a claim you cannot properly support.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 8:56:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god. Atheistic in a practical sense, - until some god makes its presence indisputably, unquestionably known, I will go with the conclusion that no god exists.

1) Atheism does not contain positive claims, like "God doesn't exist!". You do NOT need to be 100% certain of anything to be an Atheist.
2) The difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is what they refer to. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, our ability to know. Atheism refers to the presence (or absence) of a certain ~belief~

Agnostics are normally Agnostics because they don't believe the human mind is capable of grasping reality enough to come to a solid conclusion about whether or not god exists. Note: The emphasis is placed on a belief about the human mind.

Atheists are normally Atheists because they do not affirm positive beliefs in any deities. Atheists do not necessarily make positive claims about any gods at all. It's just a conceptual "organizational unit" that helps describe a minority based on what makes them different. We call people who are without sight "blind", we call people who are without speech "mute", we call people who are without belief in god "atheists." It's the designation of an absence of something, and wouldn't even exist without Theism to contrast it. Agnosticism doesn't "need" theism in the same way, because it's a separate issue entirely which only has consequences which trickle into this topic.

For more info on understanding atheism properly, in an in depth and conceptually clear way... read my paper.

http://spaghettim0nst3r.wordpress.com...
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:09:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 8:42:29 PM, beem0r wrote:
At 1/13/2009 7:44:38 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 1/13/2009 7:14:03 PM, beem0r wrote:
Alright, FIRST: Distance from a star is not the only prerequisite for life to arise. It :likely depends on a whole host of conditions being met.
Correct, this means that the probability of a planet suitable for life is low. Proved by the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
Nothing is PROVEN by a HYPOTHESIS. And sure, the earth is rare. So is every other planet.
Is every other planet suitable for life?
Even so, a planet would NOT have to be the same distance from a star as the :Earth is. The significant variable is heat. Heat can come from a variety of places - :directly from the sun, from geothermal vents, etc.
Yet, a planet needs heat from the sun to be suitable for life. Otherwise, why couldn't Mars sustain life.
A planet does not need heat from "the sun" to sustain life. It is reasonable to assume, however, that life does need heat from _somewhere_, be it from the sun, from another star, from geothermal vents, etc.
Unless, of course, life could exist that did not require very much heat, which is a maybe.
A sun is a star. Which known planet gets its heat from another source other than a star? Why don't Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune get their heat from other sources than the sun. These planets do not get heat from geothermal vents.
Further, to assume that ONLY our type of life could possibly ever exist is retarded.
There's only evidence that only our type of life existed. There's no evidence that disproves it which is comparable to no evidence that suggest that dinosaurs fossils are only 3000 years old.
Oh, that's grand. So you, a firm believer in christianity, are saying that a lack of proof that X exists means that X does not exist. [X being any life that is inherently different from the type of life we see on this planet] That's priceless.
Unless other forms of life were VERY COMMON, we would not expect to see any examples of them.
I'm just making my claim falsifiable. Don't you finally want a falsifiable claim from a creationists?

For example:

Claim: Humans are most closely related to the great apes that are indigenous to Africa

Confirmation: Numerous transitional fossils between humans and the great apes have been found in southern and eastern Africa.

Potential Falsification: Findings of any Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa would disprove the theory of common descent of humans.

It's possible that other types of life could arise that would require less or more :heat. Seeing that our life came about here, it's no surprise that it required the :conditions that were here - that does not mean life cannot happen in other :conditions by other means.
There's no evidence that disproves that only our life existed. Otherwise, why don't different types of life live on Mars, then?
Wow. Life is not common. The only reason we would expect to see life on two planets in a row is if life was VERY, VERY common. Mars, like most planets, does not seem to be conducive to abiogenesis.

Exactly.

SECOND: If there was intelligent life in the universe, it would be SO unlikely that :we would have found it by now.
First, the universe is HUGE. Second, it is possible that intelligent lifeforms tend to :destroy themselves once they reach a certain level of intelligence. Heck, if we had :more religious fanatics who wanted the apocolypse to come, we might already be :extinct. To EXPECT that intelligent life would survive long enough to what... do :intergalactic space travel [if that's even possible]... is a bit ridiculous. If other :intelligent life in the universe is about as advanced or less advanced than us, then :we would not really expect to see any of it at this point in time.
We have various detection methods such as astrometry, radial velocity, pulsar timing, transit method, gravitational microlensing, circumstellar disks, direct imaging, Observations from space, eclipsing binary minima timing, Orbital phase reflected light variations, and polarimetry to detect advanced civilizations.
And those would help us see life in our tiny little pocket of the universe. Life is not SO common that we expect to see it everywhere we look.

I just made a falsifiable claim, didn't I. Disprove my claim by getting evidence of intelligent aliens from other planets.

THIRD: Like he said, these arguments are invalid due to anthropic reasoning. You're trying to calculate the likelihood of life coming about with no known information.
Yes, I'm calculating the likelihood of our life on Earth with the information that Earth has. If other types of life can exist that doesn't require the conditions that we do, they can live on Mars. Mars only contain microbes and bacteria, not intelligent life. Why not? Why don't intelligent life that do not require our conditions of life live on Mars?
That's not what I meant. I meant that you are not considering the fact of human existence as one of your givens.
Look up the anthropic principle. My wording was vague, and you misunderstood me, I think.

I'm not considering human existence? What?

But I do understand anthropic principle. These examples attempt to explain fine-tuning universe:
1. The absurd universe
2. The unique universe
3. The multiverse
4. Creationism
5. The life principle
6. The self-explaining universe
7. The fake universe

However, what you should be trying to calculate is the probability of life coming :about GIVEN that there is currently life on earth, just like you would be calculating :it GIVEN all your other known variables, like heat, elemental makeup, speed of :rotation, distance of orbit, etc.
I am, giving the variables of life on Earth, to calculate the probability of our life that can exist on other planets.
And what use does that do? Science doesn't say that life should exist everywhere or nowhere. Further, you don't know the probability that life would come about on other planets - you don't even know how it came about on this one!

Rare Earth hypothesis and Fermi paradox explains that Earth is special. We know many factors such as the distance of the Earth from the sun which explains why Mars and Venus doesn't have intelligent life. If Earth was as far as Mars, I'm pretty sure that Earth won't be what Earth is today.

If other types of intelligent life exists, then given the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common. However, this seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.
Why would the earth be typical? First of all, no planet is 'typical.' Second, if life is rare, which seems to be true, then one would not expect it to come about on 'typical' planets.

A typical planet is what you can call just a planet. A regular planet. A planet that doesn't have purpose toward its existence. Not a planet that looks fine-tuned for life's existence. Life's rarity means whether life can develop at the said planet or not and whether life can evolve under the planet's conditions or not.

Right. I didn't say you made them up, those people you took them from did.

We can check the validity of those statements by looking at the Fermi paradox and Rare earth hypothesis.

I'm not saying, "Oh this universe is so complex and so rare, God did it."

I'm making another falsifiable claim right here. My claim is that the probability of intelligent life evolving in any planet is rare. It is supported by the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

Of course, if other life unlike Earth existed, my claim would be disproved. However, the Fermi paradox contradicts that intelligent lif
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:16:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/13/2009 5:32:35 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
At 1/13/2009 5:20:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/13/2009 4:41:10 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 1/12/2009 11:17:13 PM, jjmd280 wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist (yes, this is possible). Agnostic in a philosophical stance, because I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no god.

But whoever said you had to prove there is no god beyond the shadow of a doubt, aka certainty?

The word Atheist did. The prefix A means no, not probably no. If used without a qualifier, then, well-- A is A.

The prefix means without, also, which is what this. I am without belief.
That would be afideism (without belief). Atheism means without god, i.e. having positive reason for the claim that there is no god.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:24:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The prefix means without, also, which is what this. I am without belief.
That would be afideism (without belief). Atheism means without god, i.e. having positive reason for the claim that there is no god.

No because Theism is not simply another way of saying "god."
Theism is the description of "the belief in god."
Spaghettim0nst3r
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:27:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just to dig a little deeper, you're looking at where the word "Theism" was derived.
...from the greek "theos" which does mean plain "god" or "deity."

You can't treat "theos" and "theism" like they are the same word simply because one is the derivative of the other. They both pertain to the same concept, but from different angles.

Theism refers to the belief in god.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:31:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It all depends whether the "A" applies to the "The" or the "ism."

Any Greek grammar experts in here?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2009 9:33:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And even if the grammar does roll that way, it's STILL more useful to refer to the lack of belief as agnosticism, and the belief of a lack as atheism, because we OBVIOUSLY can't reverse them (that wouldn't make any sense), and we don't have another good word to throw in for the belief of a lack.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.