Religion

edhopper

(33,447 posts)

72. Because they are.

Tue Mar 6, 2012, 10:06 PM

Mar 2012

This is also a limited concept of life. It is based on earth centric carbon based life. Why can't there be other types?
God of the Gaps strikes again.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

110 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the Universe Obviously Has a Creator (and Why Some Atheists Refuse to Even Consider It) [View all] ellisonz Mar 2012 OP

nothing "obvious" and certainly not a "truth" lol - I belive it therefor it is msongs Mar 2012 #1

But...but...but... laconicsax Mar 2012 #3

1 Plus 1 Equals 2 1ProudAtheist Mar 2012 #29

... laconicsax Mar 2012 #2

"Anyone want to count the fallacies and factual errors?" I'd rather count fire ants, but sure. saras Mar 2012 #15

And that isn't even the whole article! laconicsax Mar 2012 #18

I'm not smart enough to understand it... mindwalker_i Mar 2012 #25

LOL, yup Skittles Mar 2012 #16

Same fallacy as all ID. What are the odds of a magical sky being? DirkGently Mar 2012 #4

Don't forget the huge leap that's always glossed over. laconicsax Mar 2012 #5

So many fallacies, so little time. But, yeah. DirkGently Mar 2012 #6

And don't forget Leap #2 skepticscott Mar 2012 #39

And same responses from the random universe crowd. zeemike Mar 2012 #21

It's also possible that we're part of a computer simulation. laconicsax Mar 2012 #30

that is what I ment by the same responses zeemike Mar 2012 #33

Well, if it's old and a "philosophy of the east," it must be unquestionably true. laconicsax Mar 2012 #34

Again...same response. zeemike Mar 2012 #35

I'm discussing this at the level you set in your initial post. laconicsax Mar 2012 #36

And those flaws are? zeemike Mar 2012 #37

The errors are factual and logical. laconicsax Mar 2012 #38

But you can't tell us what facts you think are wrong. zeemike Mar 2012 #45

Here's what you got wrong: laconicsax Mar 2012 #48

Well I take that back...it is explainable zeemike Mar 2012 #55

I suggest that you don't understand the basics because you say terrifically ignorant things. laconicsax Mar 2012 #58

All theories tama Mar 2012 #66

And? But? So? Therefore? laconicsax Mar 2012 #67

Therefore tama Mar 2012 #94

Sure, ok, why not? laconicsax Mar 2012 #101

Have you ever read the Bhagavad-Gita? zeemike Mar 2012 #68

Ancient texts can always be made to say whatever you want. laconicsax Mar 2012 #71

Well I don;t want to impress you zeemike Mar 2012 #99

Too bad...you have impressed me. laconicsax Mar 2012 #102

Actually there is a good argument that it is highly probable that we are part Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #74

Yeah, I've seen several good arguments. laconicsax Mar 2012 #76

Yeah, I never get that one either Ron Obvious Mar 2012 #70

It's worse than that. What are the odds of EXACTLY ONE magical sky being? saras Mar 2012 #100

Far as it goes, the Ancient Aliens people make more sense to me. DirkGently Mar 2012 #104

C'mon. The more power HUMANS have, the more they act like this... saras Mar 2012 #105

I just find it funny that when I tell people my theory they get all defensive Drale Mar 2012 #7

I heard someone on NPR refer to "people who believe in UFOs" DirkGently Mar 2012 #11

Wouldn't any aliens in a UFO have to be intelligent? Drale Mar 2012 #17

Ha! As opposed to just "Unidentified Flying Objects." DirkGently Mar 2012 #19

Well, just to play Anti-FSM's advocate for a second OriginalGeek Mar 2012 #107

Deal yourself 13 cards from a standard deck. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #8

I like that one. Odds of anything being exactly the way it is are astronomical. DirkGently Mar 2012 #9

I got 1/(6.35014 *10^11) Gore1FL Mar 2012 #24

You have it right. My number is all four hands. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #26

i don't know about penrose's calculations, but what assumptions did he use? unblock Mar 2012 #10

Whatever assumptions he used, the universe is in no way fine-tuned for life. laconicsax Mar 2012 #23

And humans are far from perfectly "designed." DirkGently Mar 2012 #42

Soft spot containing vital organs right up front for easy attack. Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #43

I don't think it was about 'fine-tuning' at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2012 #46

It's more basic tama Mar 2012 #65

Because they are. edhopper Mar 2012 #72

You seem more interested in theology tama Mar 2012 #93

It is the Religion Forum edhopper Mar 2012 #95

True dat :) nt tama Mar 2012 #97

What created God? Lint Head Mar 2012 #12

Been there, done that longship Mar 2012 #13

is "appeal to stupidity" in aristotle's list of fallacies? unblock Mar 2012 #14

There's "unknown, therefore ... my preferred speculation" thing. DirkGently Mar 2012 #20

Argument from Personal Incredulity skepticscott Mar 2012 #50

I love how at the end he says... Kalidurga Mar 2012 #22

He doesn't say that... ellisonz Mar 2012 #27

Good point. Warren Stupidity Mar 2012 #28

Thank you. ellisonz Mar 2012 #31

If it were reversed, it would be a fair point... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #40

Ok. ellisonz Mar 2012 #49

Whatever distinction there's supposed to be between a "social" argument... Silent3 Mar 2012 #51

A "useful straw man" is the same as a "useful lie." laconicsax Mar 2012 #53

What is truth? ellisonz Mar 2012 #54

Seriously? That's how you're going to respond? laconicsax Mar 2012 #56

Yes. ellisonz Mar 2012 #57

If I warn you not to step into the street because of an oncoming car... Silent3 Mar 2012 #103

The problem is your assumptions. Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #63

You're making an assumption too... ellisonz Mar 2012 #64

"God" is a piss-poor answer because it replaces one unknown with another and stops further inquiry. laconicsax Mar 2012 #69

So you expect an "answer" to the question of creation to be found by science? n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #77

Yes, you do realize that everything we know about the physical world... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #79

But yet... ellisonz Mar 2012 #82

Umm... laconicsax Mar 2012 #85

The primordial soup theory... ellisonz Mar 2012 #86

When you base your arguments on outdated information, you look silly. laconicsax Mar 2012 #89

I was characterizing. n/t ellisonz Mar 2012 #90

That's the most likely possibility. laconicsax Mar 2012 #80

How likely? When is it likely to be resolved? ellisonz Mar 2012 #83

You want a date? laconicsax Mar 2012 #87

What is, is unknown and to know it may never happen... ellisonz Mar 2012 #88

Well that's the difference between us it seems. laconicsax Mar 2012 #91

Yep. ellisonz Mar 2012 #92

Your clumsy anology is rather inaccurate, and God isn't an answer, but a roadblock to the answer... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #78

Again, you're supposing there is an answer. ellisonz Mar 2012 #84

Who is supposing answers here? Silent3 Mar 2012 #98

I didn't see any reference to "worshipping sky beings" Starboard Tack Mar 2012 #110

You know what I refuse to even consider? 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #32

"Refuse to Even Consider It" Silent3 Mar 2012 #41

You know this is as ridiculous as Kirk Cameron's banana argument, right? Goblinmonger Mar 2012 #44

rofl deacon_sephiroth Mar 2012 #47

...and here's a two-part takedown of this drivel. laconicsax Mar 2012 #52

Rec. nt mr blur Mar 2012 #59

It has been argued that we are actually living in a simulation FarCenter Mar 2012 #60

Teehee laconicsax Mar 2012 #61

Nice! FarCenter Mar 2012 #62

A god-like being from one perspective, perhaps... Silent3 Mar 2012 #73

An omnipotent god would create all possible simultations within all possible universes FarCenter Mar 2012 #75

Omnipotence is a *capability* to do all things... Silent3 Mar 2012 #81

On the point of Buddhism YankeyMCC Mar 2012 #96

What a steaming pantload. Odin2005 Mar 2012 #106

I saw a rock in the road today edhopper Mar 2012 #108

The most humbling thing is that the road was fine-tuned for that rock. laconicsax Mar 2012 #109