How does your view explain how the earth appears made for life?

[QuestioningMind]

Except of course that, in my belief system, at least, we're supposed to go find out how He did it.

I didn't say 'God did it so we don't have to try to learn or understand."

I WROTE...""THAT'S how God did it!" as in "EUREKA! We figured out how this was done!"

I get so tired of non-believers who demand that "God did it," means that He HAD to have 'done it' in a way that we can never figure out, understand or discover, or else He's not God. You guys have considerably more unrealistic demands of Him that I do, certainly.

Whatever, do learn a little common English grammar, if nothing else.

"God did it" is a statement that God did, indeed, 'do it." It is a statement of who (or Who) is responsible. "That's how God did it!" refers to WHAT, not Who, and is a pretty implicit statement that the process is not only to be known, but is, in fact, understandable.

I repeat. Learn to read what is written; you know, exegesis. Stop reading INTO what others write what you prefer is there, or what you assume is there. That's called eisegesis and is frowned upon.

And it really irritates me when someone makes a fool of him/herself by doing it to what I write.

Doesn't bother me when I do it to others, mind you, but that's different. Because it's me.

It's exactly as useful as me claiming that the universe was the inadvertent side effect of a magical pixie farting. Since we both have EXACTLY the same amount of verifiable evidence for our fantastical claims, both are equally useless in advancing out understanding. I find it rather sad and pathetic that so many theists think that their mere claims have any worth whatsoever. Now if you could provide some actual verifiable evidence for your claims, then we'd maybe have something to discuss.

 

[Darkforbid]

It's exactly as useful as me claiming that the universe was the inadvertent side effect of a magical pixie farting. Since we both have EXACTLY the same amount of verifiable evidence for our fantastical claims, both are equally useless in advancing out understanding. I find it rather sad and pathetic that so many theists think that their mere claims have any worth whatsoever. Now if you could provide some actual verifiable evidence for your claims, then we'd maybe have something to discuss.

Like I said to another poster how high do the scientifically calculated odds have to be before you dismissed chance, 10 quintillion, 1 googleplex or I never will?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So is ignoring the one in 10 quintillion chance the universe ending up this way, and that number just gets bigger as we discover more, but tell how big the numbers needs to get before you'd not believe it was chance?

You're quoting a "probability" that you have absolutely no basis for coming to. None. All I have to ask to completely expose you is: How did you come to the number you did? And then you get see how simply your irrational positions just fall apart in front of your eyes. You just go ahead and keep making things up and pretending to know this and that. Honestly, I feel it is a big part of what is driving people away from religion. So I'm all for you keeping up the appearance. Way to go, champ. Glad to have you on my side.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Like I said to another poster how high do the scientifically calculated odds have to be before you dismissed chance, 10 quintillion, 1 googleplex or I never will?

That's the question that I keep asking YOU, but for some reason all you do is avoid answering it. Exactly when do you decide that the chances are low enough to be a coincidence? Or, when exactly do the chances get so high that you dismiss the possibility of coincidence?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Billions of galaxies, each with billions of planets. I would say that makes life probable somewhere. Why not here?

 

[whirlingmerc]

In other words, life evolved adaptations to the conditions on earth. It's not the other way around.

Take a look at a long river. They generally start up in some mountains and flow to the sea.
Up in the highlands, chunks of broken rock fall into the river. They're irregular and jagged and rough. By the time they get washed down towards the sea they're rounded and smooth. The river didn't decide to make smooth round river rocks. Smooth round stones is an emergent property of rocks spending centuries grinding against each other and being abraded by river silt and sand. Lots of things in reality look designed to us, because we design and craft things. But they aren't, they're emergent properties of mindless processes.
Life is like that, even though we aren't very capable of seeing beyond our illusions.
Tom

It appears the Grand Canyon was made catastrophically not gradually as were many canyons. It was originally an unpopular view but more and more appears that the long flow gradual views of Lyell are going the way of the dinosaur.

But back to the topic at hand... it seems like quite the happenstance that the largest dessert just happens to be where it can blow phosphorus toward the largest river basin with the largest rain forrest

 

[Darkforbid]

You're quoting a "probability" that you have absolutely no basis for coming to. None. All I have to ask to completely expose you is: How did you come to the number you did? And then you get see how simply your irrational positions just fall apart in front of your eyes. You just go ahead and keep making things up and pretending to know this and that. Honestly, I feel it is a big part of what is driving people away from religion. So I'm all for you keeping up the appearance. Way to go, champ. Glad to have you on my side.

So your entire rebuttal is attack the person not the argument. Typical atheist response! My "probability" comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling but obviously that must be wrong just because you say so, not. Is everything you disagree with made up and pretend what an open minded view. But I love the way you pretend you've won the argument that you haven't made so mature

 

[Darkforbid]

That's the question that I keep asking YOU, but for some reason all you do is avoid answering it. Exactly when do you decide that the chances are low enough to be a coincidence? Or, when exactly do the chances get so high that you dismiss the possibility of coincidence?

When was that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

On the subject of the vestigial, there was a time we might claim not to know the purpose of so called vestigial organs or parts of DNA but now? it appears more like arguably there are 0 vestigial organs and so called junk DNA has many uses

That only works for those that misunderstand vestigial to mean useless. Vestigial does not mean without a function.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's almost like ships were created for the sake of barnacles.

It could be that all our efforts to get into space and explore it are all part of a mechanism to allow flies to travel to other planets.

 

[dianaiad]

It's exactly as useful as me claiming that the universe was the inadvertent side effect of a magical pixie farting.

Really? Can you give me some evidence?

Now me, I'm more into the 'Big Bang' thing, myself.

Since we both have EXACTLY the same amount of verifiable evidence for our fantastical claims,

Well, no, actually. I think I have a great deal more objective evidence for the "Big Bang," evolution, etc., than you do of fairy farts, but hey....as I said, you seem to not have read what I actually wrote.

Now you are doubling down. It CAN be a good thing to actually admit when one goofed, apologize (or at least, acknowledge said goof) and then continue the conversation rather than change the subject to insulting someone for writing what she didn't actually write...but you do what you want.

both are equally useless in advancing out understanding. I find it rather sad and pathetic that so many theists think that their mere claims have any worth whatsoever. Now if you could provide some actual verifiable evidence for your claims, then we'd maybe have something to discuss.

Well, I do believe that there are quite a few papers written about the process of the Big Bang and what happened after that.


Now do pay attention here, OK?

I'll try to repeat this so that it is understandable. In my belief system, we are taught that God did create the universe. Indeed, we go further and believe that He told us that He had created MANY worlds; enumerable worlds...(planets, to you.)

What we are NOT told is how that happened...that is, how He actually DID this. That's what science is for. WE are not to say 'God did it' and stop there. WE are expected to figure out how His creation WORKS, what the 'laws' that govern that creation are, and so forth.

One does that through 'science.' Or, it's not "God did it, so we can ignore it." It's "I wonder how that works? I wonder HOW God did this? I wonder what the process is? " We are SUPPOSED to go figure that stuff out for ourselves, if we can, and the wonders we discover in looking do not take away our belief in God...even as none of that stuff proves His existence.

Or....I believe that God has given us two sets of 'scriptures.' One set has been given us through prophets, who wrote according to their individual understanding, and are meant to teach us how to get along with one another, and how God deals with us. God Himself didn't write any of this; men did. Prophets, certainly, but men, none the less.

The other set was written directly BY God; the universe itself. All of creation; the world, the sun, the stars, the galaxies and all the laws that govern it. It is our 'job' and privilege to study, investigate and find out how creation works.

And it doesn't matter whether one is a non-believer or a theist; the methods one uses, and the things one learns, are the SAME. If the atheist thinks the whole thing was an accident (or whatever) and the theist believes that a deity was responsible...that doesn't change one thing about how the universe works. Doesn't change the methods used to study it. Doesn't change the laws that run it.

I'm not going to pretend not to believe that God 'did it,' just to get your approval of my scientific endeavors. If they end up being the same...say...we both believe that the Grand Canyon was formed over a very, very long time due to the action of the Colorado River (among other geological events that contributed), then MY beliefs about that don't become false just because YOU don't like the fact that I'm a theist.

Get over yourself.

MOST scientific advances have been made by theists. Including, by the way, the scientific method itself. look to al-Haytham, a rather devout Muslim. Francis Bacon...also given credit for 'inventing' the 'scientific method' was a devout Anglican. Isaac Newton was a rather famous theologian, and so on.

Oh...and we wouldn't have TV today without Filo Farnsworth, who shared MY belief system.

I suggest that you NOT decide that all theists are idiots simply because they are theists. You'll have to throw out almost everything anybody has discovered, scientifically....even the stuff you claim is given us by atheists; after all, as Bacon said, we 'stand on the shoulders of giants.'

 

[blü 2]

Or for example the moon is non magnetic while earth being magnetic and necessary for life. A magnetic moon would cause eddy currents and other difficulties and the best situation for life here is a large non magnetic moon.

The earth being magnetic is a safeguard against radiation and also keeps our atmosphere from being blown away by solar winds

It's just like it was planned!!

There are maybe 20 septillion stars in the universe, each a potential solar system ie each potentially having one or more or many planets.

That's an awful lot of opportunities for life to arise by chance on one of the planets capable of allowing life to arise.

And we know there's at least one such planet, right here,

Evolution shows us how life adapts to the planet, not the planet to life.

And obviously life can't arise on planets on which life can't arise, so if there's going to be a life scenario at all, it will have to have the same essential features as ours.

No plan, no planner, needed, just a sufficient number of chances.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So your entire rebuttal is attack the person not the argument. Typical atheist response! My "probability" comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling but obviously that must be wrong just because you say so, not. Is everything you disagree with made up and pretend what an open minded view. But I love the way you pretend you've won the argument that you haven't made so mature

And you didn't even answer the question I did pose in my reply. HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR PROBABILITY FIGURES? And no, "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" does not cut it. As they say in grade school, please show your work, or point to somebody who thinks they have done the work that you are parroting.

In the end, especially if you are a theist (and therefore expect that the universe in its current condition was all part of some plan), the probability of this universe being the one we are in now is precisely 1 in 1. As in - you should accept as a theist that it wasn't going to happen any other way. The probability is "1 in 1" because this is how it happened. There is no "going back" and redoing, there is no changing of variables. There is no variance. Which is another thing that is odd in your reply. You said "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" - note your use of the word "invariance." You even seem to accept this conclusion! That it couldn't have been any other way. No variance. Therefore the probability is 1 in 1.

 

[Shad]

For example as Nasa discovered in 2015, the Sahara sends phosphorus to the Amazon rain forest which provides for life

Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants

The puddle agrees that the hole was made for it.

 

[dybmh]

Question: "How does your view explain how the earth appears made for life?"

Answer: "In an infinite Universe anything can happen.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

@Darkforbid ,

If the Universe is infinite, the probability that a planet like Earth exists are 100%? If so, then, it isn't chance at all. It was meant to be; destiny; fate; etc...

That doesn't prove that God exists, or that life on Earth has meaning, though. Just in case that's not clear. Those are beliefs that I hold; not provable facts.

 

[Darkforbid]

Question: "How does your view explain how the earth appears made for life?"

Answer: "In an infinite Universe anything can happen.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

@Darkforbid ,

If the Universe is infinite, the probability that a planet like Earth exists are 100%? If so, then, it isn't chance at all. It was meant to be; destiny; fate; etc...

That doesn't prove that God exists, or that life on Earth has meaning, though. Just in case that's not clear. Those are beliefs that I hold; not provable facts.

For me infinite means not just a earth like planet is possible. One exactly the same must exist. There being no probability greater than infinity,,, Which is one of the reasons I dislike multiverse theory. If we're thinking countless universes exist surely a race must have developed a level of understanding and technology. That Transcended all the limitations we perceive and become God like maybe even creating universes itself, it's food for thought anyway.

 

[dybmh]

For me infinite means not just a earth like planet is possible. One exactly the same must exist. There being no probability greater than infinity,,, Which is one of the reasons I dislike multiverse theory. If we're thinking countless universes exist surely a race must have developed a level of understanding and technology. That Transcended all the limitations we perceive and become God like maybe even creating universes itself, it's food for thought anyway.

Except, that when humans become God-like ( In the manner that they chose to create universes ) they become self destructive. Sooner or later they destroy themselves.

Perhaps there is another race out there that does not have this flaw? But would God ( the real God, if it exists ) allow this to occur? Perhaps it's a universal/multiversal law? The law is: There can be only 1 ....God? ( Shameless highlander reference )

 

[Audie]

That only works for those that misunderstand vestigial to mean useless. Vestigial does not mean without a function.

Ya gotta keep in mind that if the creo is
deprived of made-up facts / definitions,
they have nothing at all left to argue
with.

Though I guess they could still say
"more and more" (every day) people
are moving to their side.

Maybe they could set it to music.

 

[Darkforbid]

And you didn't even answer the question I did pose in my reply. HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR PROBABILITY FIGURES? And no, "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" does not cut it. As they say in grade school, please show your work, or point to somebody who thinks they have done the work that you are parroting.

In the end, especially if you are a theist (and therefore expect that the universe in its current condition was all part of some plan), the probability of this universe being the one we are in now is precisely 1 in 1. As in - you should accept as a theist that it wasn't going to happen any other way. The probability is "1 in 1" because this is how it happened. There is no "going back" and redoing, there is no changing of variables. There is no variance. Which is another thing that is odd in your reply. You said "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" - note your use of the word "invariance." You even seem to accept this conclusion! That it couldn't have been any other way. No variance. Therefore the probability is 1 in 1.

Here we go again:

'And you didn't even answer the question I did pose in my reply. HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR PROBABILITY FIGURES?'

So you're lecturing me on cosmology but at the same time want me spoon feedings you easily accessible information,, OK here:

https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

Or you could have used wiki:

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia

But I suspect you'll resort to the atheist 'God did it',, which is 'it just is':

'And no, "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" does not cut it. As they say in grade school, please show your work, or point to somebody who thinks they have done the work that you are parroting.'

Well just more contentless rhetoric maybe a video will help

' In the end, especially if you are a theist (and therefore expect that the universe in its current condition was all part of some plan), the probability of this universe being the one we are in now is precisely 1 in 1.'

Fine tuning argument are about the structure of this universe the argument you're using is 'it just is'


'You said "comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling" - note your use of the word "invariance." You even seem to accept this conclusion! That it couldn't have been any other way. No variance. Therefore the probability is 1 in 1.'

I see no reason why it could not have many other ways, some capable of life (in whatever form) , some not, short duration , massively long duration,,, but I know I'll be wasting my time all you'll ever post is ' it just is'

 

[viole]

So your entire rebuttal is attack the person not the argument. Typical atheist response! My "probability" comes from the apparent invariance of the universes constants seen in cosmological supercomputer modelling but obviously that must be wrong just because you say so, not. Is everything you disagree with made up and pretend what an open minded view. But I love the way you pretend you've won the argument that you haven't made so mature

First question: do you know what probability is?

Spoiler: it is very probable that you do not.

Ciao

- viole