Just a thought

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, this is just another darn good post. I pretty much agree with everything said. It's kinda scary, though. You were pretty intelligent when I first met u on these forums, and now u seem even more so.

Donate your brain to science.

Aww shucks you're just saying that so you don't have to plough through my overly-long post!

the first picture is the earth. the second picture is the solar system. but is what the third and fourth pic of? the fifth pic is our galaxy. I'm guessing the sixth pic is our galaxy cluster. so is the 7th pic a wider view of our galaxy cluster? and what are the last two pics of? is the last pic supposed be where we are in the universe?

any help would be apreciated.

First is the Earth.
Second is the Solar System.
Third is a map of the local stars.
Fourth is a close-up on one of our galaxy's arms.
Fifth is the galaxy itself.
Sixth is a map of our galaxy's satellite galaxies (they orbit our galaxy like moons around Saturn).
Seventh is the Local Group, a collection of galaxies which includes our own.
Eighth is the large-scale structure in the universe: instead of an even distribution of galaxies, we see that they are clumped together in balls and strings.
Ninth is a simplified view of the universe.

You'd have to show that abiogenesis happened even once, and show that it wasn't intelligent abiogenesis, before you could attempt any statement of the probability of it accidentally happening more than once.

Well, what we know about abiogenesis on Earth shows us that it's not too demanding. It's the same principle by which we can know that water is fairly common in the universe: hydrogen and oxygen are common, and so, statistically speaking, we expect enough of those two molecules to bump into each other enough for water to form. Likewise, the constituents needed for abiogenesis to occur are common enough that it's not too unlikely that it could occur again.

Of course, our knowledge of abiogenesis is limited, but the theory is sound.

Why all the spare room in every atom? You ask that as if you assume there is no good answer just because neither of us knows the answer.

I'm of the opinion that, should God want a universe teeming with life, the universe will be teeming with life. Since it's not, there are three possibilities: God doesn't want the universe teeming with life, God doesn't get what he wants (which casts doubts on his status as 'God'), or God doesn't exist. What other alternative is there?

 

[Nostromo]

You'd have to show that abiogenesis happened even once, and show that it wasn't intelligent abiogenesis, before you could attempt any statement of the probability of it accidentally happening more than once.

I would say that's an unreasonable request.

Let's say we're both transported to another planet and we know that an abiogenesis event is about to occur. We both look through a microscope and see a bunch of chemicals undergoing reactions and replicating themselves (or whatever agreed upon definition we have of life appearing from non-life).

You could argue that God has a guiding hand in those reactions and directed them towards abiogenesis. Nobody watching the event would be able to tell the difference between a guided abiogenesis event and an unguided abiogenesis event, so how can one possibly show that it wasn't intelligent abiogenesis?

 

[shinbits]

I assume the 5th pic is the Milky Way galaxy. According to Wikipedia, the diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years. The diameter of the universe is at least 93,000,000,000 light years.

How do they determine the diameter of the universe? Have they been able to determine the "edge" of the universe?

 

[shinbits]

Aww shucks you're just saying that so you don't have to plough through my overly-long post!

First is the Earth.
Second is the Solar System.
Third is a map of the local stars.
Fourth is a close-up on one of our galaxy's arms.
Fifth is the galaxy itself.
Sixth is a map of our galaxy's satellite galaxies (they orbit our galaxy like moons around Saturn).
Seventh is the Local Group, a collection of galaxies which includes our own.
Eighth is the large-scale structure in the universe: instead of an even distribution of galaxies, we see that they are clumped together in balls and strings.
Ninth is a simplified view of the universe.

Thank you for your help. And I've never heard of satalite galaxies, so that's something new for me to read up on.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

How do they determine the diameter of the universe? Have they been able to determine the "edge" of the universe?

I am not sure. I suppose that the number has to be at least this big based on observations made so far. Could be bigger still I suppose. Whatever the number is, it will be beyond my mind to imagine it.

And this is just width. Volume is what counts when it comes to number of solar systems. The known universe is some 10^18 times the volume that the Milky Way would occupy if it were spherical rather than a disk. Reminds me of Douglas Adams' Total Perspective Vortex. I'd rather not think about it.

 

[Chesterton]

And finally (as SithDoughnut already pointed out), you don’t perceive the same contradictory differences of opinion among believers in your worldview to negate their validity, or as a reason to stop believing—you didn’t even acknowledge those differences.

It seems to me that you are applying an unreasonable standard to non-believers that you don’t apply to believers.

I didn't acknowledge the differences Sith brought up because they are different kinds of differences. We're just talking here about the single question "Is there a Creator?". Everyone who calls themselves Christian agrees on the answer to that. But yes, Christians do disagree on many other questions.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, what we know about abiogenesis on Earth shows us that it's not too demanding. It's the same principle by which we can know that water is fairly common in the universe: hydrogen and oxygen are common, and so, statistically speaking, we expect enough of those two molecules to bump into each other enough for water to form. Likewise, the constituents needed for abiogenesis to occur are common enough that it's not too unlikely that it could occur again.

Of course, our knowledge of abiogenesis is limited, but the theory is sound.

We don't know that abiogenesis occurred on Earth at all. What evidence is there? Is it actually a "theory"?

I'm of the opinion that, should God want a universe teeming with life, the universe will be teeming with life. Since it's not, there are three possibilities: God doesn't want the universe teeming with life, God doesn't get what he wants (which casts doubts on his status as 'God'), or God doesn't exist. What other alternative is there?

You have no way of knowing whether or not the universe is teeming with life. As the OP indicates, it's simply too big to know.

I would say that's an unreasonable request.

Let's say we're both transported to another planet and we know that an abiogenesis event is about to occur. We both look through a microscope and see a bunch of chemicals undergoing reactions and replicating themselves (or whatever agreed upon definition we have of life appearing from non-life).

You could argue that God has a guiding hand in those reactions and directed them towards abiogenesis. Nobody watching the event would be able to tell the difference between a guided abiogenesis event and an unguided abiogenesis event, so how can one possibly show that it wasn't intelligent abiogenesis?

You're right, you can't show it. Therefore atheism is a belief.

 

[MolecularGenetics]

I didn't acknowledge the differences Sith brought up because they are different kinds of differences. We're just talking here about the single question "Is there a Creator?". Everyone who calls themselves Christian agrees on the answer to that. But yes, Christians do disagree on many other questions.

The nature of the disagreement is immaterial. The fundamental issue is whether or not the presents of contradictory disagreement among those opposing or promoting an idea negates the validity of all arguments for or against it.

If you agree that it does not, then you are not justified in using contradictory disagreement among opposition to your worldview as a reason to maintain it.

Since you obliviously don't perceive the contradictory differences of opinion among believers on given issues to negate their validity or to be a reason to stop believing, for you to only level the criticism against those that hold differing worldviews is to have a double-standard.

Also, such uniformity of opinion on a few fundamental issues among adherents to a given worldview may be understandable when you define the worldview as the belief one way or the other on those issues. As long as we keep the term "God" undefined, we can could say that all Christians believe in God, and all atheists do not.

But to hold the wider set of those that are not of your worldview to the standard of being in unanimous agreement on an issue that doesn't define the set is unreasonable.

So no; atheists and agnostics don't reasonably "need to get organized;" don't reasonably "look kinda silly attacking Christianity with contradictory ideas;" and you are not justified in using the contradiction as "one of the reasons [you're] not [an atheist or agnostic]."

 

[Chesterton]

The nature of the disagreement is immaterial. The fundamental issue is whether or not the presents of contradictory disagreement among those opposing or promoting an idea negates the validity of all arguments for or against it.

If you agree that it does not, then you are not justified in using contradictory disagreement among opposition to your worldview as a reason to maintain it.

Okay, fair enough. You're right, and I agree it does not. But then atheists should also stop using the argument that "there's so many different ideas about gods, therefore, there is no God." And similarly they should stop using the old "I just believe in one less god than you do" line.

Since you obliviously don't perceive the contradictory differences of opinion among believers on given issues to negate their validity or to be a reason to stop believing, for you to only level the criticism against those that hold differing worldviews is to have a double-standard.

Also, such uniformity of opinion on a few fundamental issues among adherents to a given worldview may be understandable when you define the worldview as the belief one way or the other on those issues. As long as we keep the term "God" undefined, we can could say that all Christians believe in God, and all atheists do not.

But to hold the wider set of those that are not of your worldview to the standard of being in unanimous agreement on an issue that doesn't define the set is unreasonable.

So no; atheists and agnostics don't reasonably "need to get organized;" don't reasonably "look kinda silly attacking Christianity with contradictory ideas;" and you are not justified in using the contradiction as "one of the reasons [you're] not [an atheist or agnostic]."

Okay, I won't use the contradiction; I'll just use the fact that neither idea (universe teeming with life, vs. the universe as a vast wasteland) is an argument against God.

Then again, I could be wrong. Contradiction in the form of absolute opposition does seem significant in terms of human nature at least, when you realize a group of people adhere to an idea because of "___", and another group of people adhere to the same idea because of "the near opposite of ___". I don't think there's any similar absolutely oppositional equivalent among Christians, or even among theists.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We don't know that abiogenesis occurred on Earth at all. What evidence is there? Is it actually a "theory"?

I didn't want to turn this into a big thing about abiogenesis, but I suppose it won't hurt.
Abiogenesis is a theory, though not as concrete as, say, my dear friend quantum mechanics.

This video sums up abiogenesis:

YouTube - 3 - The Origin of Life Made Easy

You have no way of knowing whether or not the universe is teeming with life. As the OP indicates, it's simply too big to know.

That's why I made a statistical argument: we haven't been there, but we can be pretty sure about what's out there. I haven't been to Turkey, but I'm somewhat confident they have trees.

You're right, you can't show it. Therefore atheism is a belief.

I'm saying nothing .

Okay, I won't use the contradiction; I'll just use the fact that neither idea (universe teeming with life, vs. the universe as a vast wasteland) is an argument against God.

Neither is supposed to be, per se. "The universe is virtually void of life" is a counter to the "The universe was made for life" and "The Earth is fine-tuned for life" variety of arguments. It's not an argument against God, but rather an argument against an argument for God (a refutation of a proof of p is not itself a disproof of p).

 

[Chesterton]

I didn't want to turn this into a big thing about abiogenesis, but I suppose it won't hurt.
Abiogenesis is a theory, though not as concrete as, say, my dear friend quantum mechanics.

This video sums up abiogenesis:

I've seen a similar video. It's an imaginative hypothesis at best (does it even meet the formal requirements of a hypothesis?); it's not a theory. The video itself says "current hypotheses are nowhere near as solid as the theory of evolution". The video just tries to refute it's own strawman; the idea that science says life "popped out of nowhere" (Kirk Cameron didn't even say that).

That's why I made a statistical argument: we haven't been there, but we can be pretty sure about what's out there. I haven't been to Turkey, but I'm somewhat confident they have trees.

How can you be pretty sure about what's out there? Our radio signals haven't even had time to leave our tiny little galaxy yet, have they?

Neither is supposed to be, per se.

But they are both used against Christianity often.

"The universe is virtually void of life" is a counter to the "The universe was made for life" and "The Earth is fine-tuned for life" variety of arguments. It's not an argument against God, but rather an argument against an argument for God (a refutation of a proof of p is not itself a disproof of p).

"The universe is virtually void of life" is not a counter to anything because 1) we have no way of knowing if that statement is true, and 2) the word "virtually" has no importance; the universe either has life or it doesn't, and we know the universe has life because it's here on Earth.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've seen a similar video. It's an imaginative hypothesis at best (does it even meet the formal requirements of a hypothesis?); it's not a theory. The video itself says "current hypotheses are nowhere near as solid as the theory of evolution".

That doesn't mean it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis (i.e., an explanation for how life could have formed) that's accrued sufficient evidence to become a theory. It doesn't have as much evidence as evolution, but it's still a theory.

The video just tries to refute it's own strawman; the idea that science says life "popped out of nowhere" (Kirk Cameron didn't even say that).

"Popped out of nowhere" is a stereotype hurled by both sides, I find. God clicked his fingers and out we popped.

How can you be pretty sure about what's out there? Our radio signals haven't even had time to leave our tiny little galaxy yet, have they?

No, not in the slightest (they've only travelled about 100ly, which isn't much, considering the galaxy is ~100,000ly across). But light from the stars has had time to reach us. That's how we can find extrasolar planets, how we can determine the temperature, size, and chemical content of stars, etc: the data is already being sent to us. We can be pretty sure what's out there because astronomers can do awfully clever things with what stars emit (namely, their spectra).

But they are both used against Christianity often.

I'm not so sure that they are, but then, I tend to avoid places where atheists (and theists) are... well, CF seems to be an isolated city of civility and mutual respect in a wasteland of swearing and bad spelling .

"The universe is virtually void of life" is not a counter to anything because 1) we have no way of knowing if that statement is true, and 2) the word "virtually" has no importance; the universe either has life or it doesn't, and we know the universe has life because it's here on Earth.

It's still a counter, we just don't agree on whether it works. My point was that it isn't used to argue against God or Christianity itself. Whether it works at all is something else entirely.

 

[Nostromo]

You're right, you can't show it. Therefore atheism is a belief.

Yes, but that's not really the point of my post. My point was essentially that we have no idea what God's interference would look like, we've never seen it, so what you're asking for is impossible.

Aside from that, there's the logical error in thinking that if you can't prove something is wrong then it must be right, which in this case is compounded by the fact that the thing in question isn't very well defined and nobody can show that it exists at all.

 

[Chesterton]

No, not in the slightest (they've only travelled about 100ly, which isn't much, considering the galaxy is ~100,000ly across). But light from the stars has had time to reach us. That's how we can find extrasolar planets, how we can determine the temperature, size, and chemical content of stars, etc: the data is already being sent to us. We can be pretty sure what's out there because astronomers can do awfully clever things with what stars emit (namely, their spectra).

So there can't be life unless it's like yours, huh? That is a planetarist slur. There's no place for earthism on an otherwise civil forum. You sir, are a rabid earthist!

 

[Doveaman]

What does life evolving in very adverse conditions have to do with life ARISING everywhere? Cars can drive on dirt but how come we don't see cars driving on Mars?

Because there are no intelligent designers on Mars.

The gold medalists would be Bible literalists, without a doubt. God is good even when he kills thousands of babies, amirite?

I keep telling you people God does not kill the way we kill. When we kill we take away what belongs to another, which is bad. When God kills He simply takes back what is His, which is perfectly fine: "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" - Ps 24:1

 

[Naraoia]

What proportion of planets not named Earth have conditions that we know can sustain life?

Of planets not named Earth that we know of? Irrelevant, since we don't have a representative sample of planets in the universe (or even in our own galaxy). AFAIK (Wiccan can correct me ), current planet detection methods (barring microlensing) are much better at finding large planets orbiting very close to their stars than small planets somewhat further away. Until recently, the planets we even had a chance of knowing about were precisely the planets that aren't suitable for life as we know it.

As of right now, we have no reason to believe that many planets exists. We're simply being optimistic.

Haven't we found hundreds of planets just in our neighbourhood?

Plants changed the atmosphere, but not because it was beneficial for them to do so. There was no selection pressure, they didn't evolve to change the local (or global) atmosphere, etc. Earthworms revitalise the soil, but not because they evolved to do so.
Ants, on the other hand, do intentionally change their environment: they build elaborate nests, churning up tons of dirt to make way for their nests. They don't find a convenient place in the environment and live there, they alter the environment to suit them.

Thanks, that's what I thought.

 

[Naraoia]

So there can't be life unless it's like yours, huh? That is a planetarist slur. There's no place for earthism on an otherwise civil forum. You sir, are a rabid earthist!

Until outraged Gungans start spamming CF, I wouldn't worry about that too much

 

[Doveaman]

I also think it is the ultimate arrogance for Earthings to believe that Earth is uniquely capable of life among such an impossible to conceive number of solar systems.

I agree. If God created life here surely He can do it else where, right?

It doesn't even seem plausible from a religious stance either - God makes this vast creation and only puts life on one planet?

Well, if God created life then surely He can put life on one planet if He chose to, right?

This is how I tend to see it: God created the entire universe for man to inhabit, but He placed man temporarily on this tiny but adequate enough planet until man have proven himself to be mature and responsible enough to care for a whole universe:

"What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him." - Heb 2:6-8

At present we only see tiny planet earth subject to man, but the time is coming when the entire universe will be subject to man.

But of course we must first prove ourselves worthy priest by how we conduct ourselves here on tiny planet earth: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much...So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" - Luke 16:10-11
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Doveaman]

I'm of the opinion that, should God want a universe teeming with life, the universe will be teeming with life. Since it's not, there are three possibilities: God doesn't want the universe teeming with life, God doesn't get what he wants (which casts doubts on his status as 'God'), or God doesn't exist. What other alternative is there?

God doesn't want the universe teeming with life yet.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

\This is how I tend to see it: God created the entire universe for man to inhabit, but He placed man temporarily on this tiny but adequate enough planet until man have proven himself to be mature and responsible enough to care for a whole universe:

At present we only see tiny planet earth subject to man, but the time is coming when the entire universe will be subject to man.

But of course we must first prove ourselves worthy priest by how we conduct ourselves here on tiny planet earth: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much...So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?" - Luke 16:10-11

So.. would man caused global warming mean we're failing the exam to take care of the universe?

Serious question by the way i just want to entertain the idea for a bit since its pretty nice.

It seems to me that proving we can keep this planet healthy is a fairly good way to show our maturity. Granted we could do that by living in the darkages. But what is the point of a test if you dont have the means to fail it so in that sense acces to dangerous technology and unlimited population growth potential that could wreck the earth and it would be a sign of maturity and responsiblity if we can find a good way to keep the balance .

Thats putting aside weither we follow the correct religion. The primary goal might be to follow the correct path for the earth.