Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 667
  • Darwins +102/-1

Logic can be used to prove belief.  My logic is tight.

I, and I dare say we, beg to differ. 

Yelp evidence could eventually be produced unlike the biblical claims of God!

So if it hasn't yet been produced, why believe it?

I'll tell you what I'll provide some evidence when you do.  Go ahead show me some physics creating planets that support life and then the life that it creates.

I find this a very odd shifting of the burden, presumably because you believe in the "physics" that creates planets, only you add on an intelligence behind it to guide it - you know, the calculator behind the calculations, the scientific mind?

So I could, if I felt obliged and warranted, explain how planet formation works to the best of our knowledge, but one, what would be the point considering you can still accept these explanations but still plonk god behind these processes, and two, the burden is on you to show that an intelligence is strictly behind any process you can make up for planet formation. You're the one adding this extra bit on the end without justification.

To me all the planets out there that do not have humans on them is all the proof I need that these laws need an operator to create life as we know it.

You won't find humans on other planets, unless we actually go there. Humans are an evolutionary product of earth, and even if somewhere out there in the cosmos there is a species on another planet that resembles a human down to DNA level, are they still classed as human?

Your version of things there should be life on every planet!!!

My version of things? What is that exactly, and how do you come to the conclusion you have? You see, "my version", or what you might call "the observable world version", doesn't expect there to be life on every planet. Life will arise on a planet (or a moon or another potential celestial body) if the conditions are right for life to arise on that planet. That's what happened with earth. You seem to be in a position where the conditions can't ever be right unless some intelligence wants them to be so and makes them so. Yet, as you have said, there is not one morsel of evidence to show that this is the case, but we are to ditch all the knowledge gained from decades of painstaking research and investigation of the evidence and go with your "logic" because you (and you alone) say it is tight? Er, no thanks.

I see those planets there on purpose as a protective shield keeping big asteroids and comets from demolishing our planet.

See Boots' football field and acorn analogy. Also, even if you had a point here, how would these planets protect us from a direct hit from a nearby (relatively speaking) gamma ray burst or pulsar? Do the planets in our solar system all have a share scheme in ozone or something?

Then we come to you being ignorant of the possibility of life existing elsewhere in our solar system. Europa, Enceladus, even Mars. God put these bodies there to protect earthly life from celestial bombardment? Seriously, pull the other one. As is clear from your projection of "my version", you're quite as ease with making stuff up on the spot.

They were never meant to sustain human life.  Thinking that we could just move to one of them is just a way to keep letting scientist destroy this planet with their polluting fossil fuels!!!

As I've said above, humans are an evolutionary product of earth where the conditions are so that human life can be sustained on it. We fit the specific conditions that the earth currently holds, it doesn't work the other way around. And you are begging the question here by implying that these other planets were never "meant" to sustain human life. "Meant" implies purpose, and purpose requires something with active goals, which in this case is the god you have shoehorned in.

I can't take your statement regarding destroying this planet seriously. It is simply vapid and ignorant. I haven't heard anywhere that scientists are thinking "we could just move to one of them".

The sun's life ending in 4 billion years can be avoided if we please God by loving one another, IMO.

As we've together already established that there currently is no evidence to support such an assertion, we can revert back to your burden of proof here. Ignoring that, I can say that this god of yours appears to be as callous as the bible one. While I agree with the sentiment of loving one another, doing it in order to please a god so that he'll stop our star turning into a red giant is not a good reason to love one another. It shouldn't take the appeasement of a god to want to do this, and any god who thinks it should so that he can stop us of from being annihilated, especially when he could do so without the proviso of doing what he'd like us to do, is morally deplorable.

One more thing, believing in an afterlife does not make me think less of this one but quite the opposite!!!  It helps me understand why we should be kind to one another.  Even if your fellow man doesn't appreciate your kindness there is someone larger than them that does!

What you believe in the privacy of you own home and mind is your own business. If it gets you through the day, fine. However, when you expect that belief to hold reverence with others, you're going to have to do better than shouting "logic", making stuff up as you go along and pandering to your ignorance.
Changed Change Reason Date