Evidence for God?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, have you guys yet succeeded where humans have failed since the dawn of humans.... and found some evidence for God, yet?

There's a shitload of evidence, but atheists don't want to see it.

Or maybe atheists have considered it and found it to be bad evidence.

Atheists never consider anything they can't hold in their hands.

Well, you just made that up. If you have to make up sweeping fantasies to make a point, you don't really have a point.

 

[K9Buck]

Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.

Well, now it has gone past "fantasy" to "blatant lie", as it is not possible for you to have observed all atheists. If you have to lie to make a point, you don't really have a point.

 

[Boss]

During the time of God, believers thought the earth was the center of the universe.

Why didn't God correct them?

He sent them Galileo!

 

[K9Buck]

Not a "sweeping fantasy", just an observation.

Well, now it has gone past "fantasy" to "blatant lie", as it is not possible for you to have observed all atheists. If you have to lie to make a point, you don't really have a point.

Yea and you're a big fat meanie!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...

 

[K9Buck]

I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...

 

[MarkDuffy]

No one ever said it was easy. It took a billion years. Very difficult to do in the lab, but we have made remarkable progress.

Neeuupp.... You've not made ANY progress because it's never been done.

You can show me all these sensationalistic stories but when you read them you understand they've still not created life from inorganic materials. It simply hasn't been done.

More proof that God didn't do it. The vastness of life is too complex for a God.

LOL... You might be slightly underestimating the power of an omnipotent superbeing.

Yes, there is a moon hypothesis, but that only claims to make life on earth easier. The rest is just physics.

Say what you will, I think the moon is fairly important to life.

This is nonsense. Molecular atmospheric oxygen is not required for life. First life were anerobic heterotrophs. Oxygen atmosphere came later due to autotrophs having evolved from them.

Well, that's your theory, anyway. Still, the vast array of life we find on Earth couldn't exist without molecular atmospheric oxygen, including much of the life in the ocean. I've read the various abiogenesis theories and they pretty much all conclude the motion of the early ocean was essential in the propagation of life.

As far as your moving ocean, the ocean moves via corolis effect that is caused by earth's rotation & atmospheric weather patterns.

Mostly it's due to the gravitational forces of the moon and sun working on the ocean.

I know of no one who makes this specific claim. When people like me claim the universe is teeming with life, we mean that there are a LOT of stars out there. We also do not mean human level life.

Well when we're talking about aliens who have supposedly visited our planet and such, or who MAY visit someday... sounds to me like you're talking about human level life or greater. Yes, I am aware there are lots of stars out there. It's unlikely that any of them have more than one planet in the proper zone for life to even exist. Most of the stars out there actually have a companion star in close proximity, which would probably dismiss the chances of life on their planets because of the heat from dual or triple suns. Then there are the million or so circumstances like the moon and tides and seasons and atmosphere and electromagnetic fields, etc.

Now , it would seem to me, a reasonable type person, that before you make the claim "the universe is teaming with life" you might want to actually FIND some life elsewhere first. You know... like a simple organism or something! Because, before you've done that, if you're running around making such a claim, you sound like an insane idiot who is practicing faith in a religious belief. Just saying!

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...

haha, yeah, i see how this works... you slide seamlessly from denigrating entire swaths of people to being the victim of some meanie on the internet.

 

[Boss]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

 

[K9Buck]

I very well may be... but I will not let lies go unchallenged...

haha, yeah, i see how this works... you slide seamlessly from denigrating entire swaths of people to being the victim of some meanie on the internet.

I'm merely suggesting that you not let a little rhetoric get you all riled up. None of us have all the answers.

 

[K9Buck]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

Good analogy. Here is another.

Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

 

[MarkDuffy]

During the time of God, believers thought the earth was the center of the universe.

Why didn't God correct them?

He sent them Galileo!

AFTER the Bible and believers almost burned him at the stake.

Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.

You can use this in future arguments claiming this makes earth special.

I should warn you however, that if earth requires a moon to have not only life but intelligent life; then I will claim another case of your creator's failure (to need one with his magic).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

Good analogy. Here is another.

Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.

Also a horrible analogy, in a similar way. You have zero objective evidence for the existence of ANY gods, much less exactly one. Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer. It wouldn't matter if one of his created characters denied his existence or YOU did...these are actually the very same thing, and you would both be wrong, objectively. And that could be demonstrated.

 

[K9Buck]

Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer.

The character in the video game would have ZERO evidence of a programmer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet we have objective evidence of the existence of the programmer.

The character in the video game would have ZERO evidence of a programmer.

You are merely arguing that the existence of a god or gods is possible, with which I agree. It *is* possible. It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension, and we are just ignorant of all the evidence of that fact. These are not strong arguments for the existence of gods or of unicorns.

What you have actually done is argue the basis for agnostic atheism, not for theism.

 

[Boss]

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.

You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.

You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.

All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.

You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.

You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.

All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

 

[K9Buck]

It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...

And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.