0 registered members (),
1,397
guests, and 7
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Closed Thread
[Re: Joquan]
#334891
07/25/10 19:38
07/25/10 19:38
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177 Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Sorry if I offended anyone, I won't be posting many more religious topics in THIS forum for a while. (Seems that there are generally atheists here, and not many Christians that I know of.) Why would you stop just because there aren't many who think alike? It's one of those incredibly dumb things. I guess in your mind it's really not about who's actually right in a discussion, but it's about who's with the most proverbial fists to back their empty claims up. Unbelievable. Having said that, I totally respect your view even if I really totally disagree with it. Even if it's indeed a bit silly to continue down this road. A lot of arguments have already passed through this forum and I frankly can't remember any theist's argument that really stuck except for their claim that science can not disprove God. Of course the burden of proof should really be on the one who's claiming something exists. In my mind claiming we can't proof it, isn't enough.
|
|
|
This is not closed yet
[Re: PHeMoX]
#334904
07/25/10 20:09
07/25/10 20:09
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615 Cambridge
Joey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615
Cambridge
|
I frankly can't remember any theist's argument that really stuck If you believe in random selection and physics and all that I'm sure you can estimate the probability that something like us, here, today, can exist. Following general atheist belief and scientific proof gives me a probability which is essentially zero. Thus it would be only logical if there was something which privileged our development. edit: In fact, if you now answer "but the probability is not zero, there is the chance that all that happened by accident" I agree. But I hope you see that this argument would not be valid for someone who claims to be on the all-proven side of the world, because, as we just calculated, odds would be so much against him that this would be "blind belief".
Last edited by Joey; 07/25/10 20:14.
|
|
|
Re: This is not closed yet
[Re: Lukas]
#334921
07/25/10 20:46
07/25/10 20:46
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615 Cambridge
Joey
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615
Cambridge
|
Even from one self-reproducing cell it would have been highly improbable that higher life should develop. And the probability that intelligent life, dominant through its brainpower (something I question sometimes), would develop, is even smaller. Your conclusion is correct, of course. But still, why are you here? I mean, your consciousness, the thing that is you, is here, now. Why? You're not here anymore in two hundred years. It hasn't existed before. It's hard to believe that consciousness comes out of nothing. Furthermore, it's not logical to say that the universe is infinite. Why? Because chances that a dominant species with faster-than-light-travel should have developed somewhere is not zero, thus it must exist. But I'm not a slave yet, so your argumentation leads me to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite.
So my argument remains valid.
|
|
|
Re: This is not closed yet
[Re: Lukas]
#334926
07/25/10 20:59
07/25/10 20:59
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,218 Germany
Rackscha
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,218
Germany
|
@Lukas: The base things to create a cell where created by some elements colliding with electricity(a bit hard for me to explain in english). We talked about it in school and that this procedure had been reproduced in a laboratory. In its early stages, the world hat lots of bolts flashing into the water(wild times 8-) )
Those created organic base elements later(after x years) reacted to a simple cell.
Iam not someone wo says there is god(or something like this). IAm more a person that beliefs in technology and biology.
BUT: Iam not someone who says that believing in god is wrong. Everybody has its own way. Thats human individuality. If someone cant accept different opinions and points of views, hes absolutely wrong between other humans, doesnt matter if he beliefs in god, in beer, chocolate,Santa or science.
GReets Rackscha
Last edited by Rackscha; 07/25/10 21:02.
MY Website with news of my projects: (for example my current Muliplayer Bomberman, GenesisPrecompiler for LiteC and TileMaster, an easy to use Tile editor) Sparetime-Development
|
|
|
Re: This is not closed yet
[Re: Joey]
#334930
07/25/10 21:06
07/25/10 21:06
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043 Germany
Lukas
Programmer
|
Programmer
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,043
Germany
|
The human brain helped us surviving. That's what natural selection is all about. If a mutation helps an organism to survive, the new genes will replace the old ones.
"Furthermore, it's not logical to say that the universe is infinite. Why? Because chances that a dominant species with faster-than-light-travel should have developed somewhere is not zero, thus it must exist. But I'm not a slave yet, so your argumentation leads me to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite." Firt of all, there is evidence that the universe is indeed infinite. It could be curved like the Earth's surface, so we would return to the beginning after going in the same direction all the time, but it rather seems that it's pretty flat on larger scales. Faster-than-light-travelling has a propability of 0%, because it's not possible. And alien species are so impropable that, if they exist, they couldn't detect us and reach us before both races are extinct, because if they are a million lightyears away, light needs a million light years to get there.
|
|
|
|