The Universe is huge or infinite. (Reply #118)

In the discussion thread: Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah [View all]

Sat Oct 1, 2016, 04:15 PM

cpwm17 (3,829 posts)

118. The Universe is huge or infinite.

Host: What is the origin of life? It’s a question scientists, philosophers and theologians have debated for centuries. If you believe one widely accepted scientific theory, life on Earth was one big happy accident, overcoming the astronomical odds against it.

The Universe is astronomically huge and astronomically old. There is also a good chance there is far more beyond our Universe. Given enough chances, the highly improbable becomes guaranteed.

A god is generally defined as a first cause. A god would be far more complex than the most complex life we know, in a form that contradicts all we know that is possible here in our Universe. What are the chances, of all the imaginable starting points, the single starting point of all of existence is this invisible critter with super powers?

A starting point with dumb matter and energy seems infinitely more plausible. Life starting by a low odds event in our ancient and huge Universe is infinitely more likely than the starting pint of all of existence starting with this mysterious critter with super powers.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

185 replies	Author	Time	Post
Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah [View all]	rug	Sep 2016	OP
A silly post	ArtD48	Sep 2016	#1
That's kind of his point.	rug	Sep 2016	#2
"Atheists Still Waiting for the Origin-of-Life Messiah" - Nope	LongtimeAZDem	Sep 2016	#3
"Yet" is what makes it messianic.	rug	Sep 2016	#5
"Yet" means "not so far"; there is no other implication, despite your desperate longing for one (nt)	LongtimeAZDem	Sep 2016	#11
Oh, good. So, do you expect that answer to be forthcoming?	rug	Sep 2016	#17
Probably not in my lifetime, which doesn't bother me at all	LongtimeAZDem	Sep 2016	#20
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".	rug	Sep 2016	#24
Contemplating the limits of scientific knowledge is hardly "childish superstition".	AlbertCat	Oct 2016	#165
"Scientists have been doing that from the beginning."	rug	Oct 2016	#167
And here you are, blithely pretending that's not an offensive	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#79
Who are you talking to?	rug	Oct 2016	#94
The quote starts with a run-on sentence.	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#91
Your second "sentence" lacks a verb.	rug	Oct 2016	#93
Blogs and everyday speech usually allow sentence fragments.	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#97
Hardly. Show an implication of biology (which is not a proper noun) that rebuts him.	rug	Oct 2016	#99
"Hardly" is a sentence fragment.	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#103
You haven't posted even a fragment on what implication biology has to this article.	rug	Oct 2016	#104
See # 8, # 19, # 30	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#106
That's wise since you have nothing to offer on the subject.	rug	Oct 2016	#107
You posted someone else's work....	Brettongarcia	Oct 2016	#110
See #148. The chemistry professor was quoted out of sequence, with vital phrases and pages missing	muriel_volestrangler	Oct 2016	#150
Everything is supernatural. Trouble is, it's too banal-seeming	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#159
Okay ... and who created God? hmm.	YOHABLO	Sep 2016	#4
That's an excellent question and here is the answer.	rug	Sep 2016	#6
Empty assertions. It's purely speculative to assert existence has a cause.	immoderate	Sep 2016	#13
The flip side is what is speculative and unfounded.	rug	Sep 2016	#14
What is known, doesn't tell us what is unknown.	immoderate	Sep 2016	#22
It doesn't tell what will and won't be known either.	rug	Sep 2016	#23
How convenient for you.	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#80
Describe it then in natural terms.	rug	Oct 2016	#102
You don't need to know that. Ni tampoco hablar tal tonterias.	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#153
Dr Pross may need to learn thermodynamics better:	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#7
Pross is a professor of chemistry.	Jim__	Sep 2016	#19
The video may portray his motives well; and he may be a good scientist; but that does not imply	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#30
See #148; Averick took certain phrases from different chapters of Pross, reordered them	muriel_volestrangler	Oct 2016	#149
That could be -- but it all rapidly falls into an uninteresting category of literary criticism IMO.	struggle4progress	Oct 2016	#164
A plausible response. (No gods.)	immoderate	Sep 2016	#8
Is there any good cosmological evidence for the inevitability of life?	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#9
I would not say that. Depends on what you consider 'evidence.'	immoderate	Sep 2016	#12
The only definite conception I could have of "life" would resemble "life-as-we-know-it"	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#18
Why would you assume life needs oxygen, or water?	immoderate	Sep 2016	#21
Our atmospheric O2 has biological origins. O2 is reactive so one might not expect	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#29
If we stop spending all our money bombing brown people	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#81
This is less about the creation of life than it is about the creation of matter in the first place,	rug	Sep 2016	#15
If we assume there's a creator.	immoderate	Sep 2016	#25
I could have said the genesis of life but that might upset you.	rug	Sep 2016	#26
Not really. It's about the arrangement of matter - ie the arrangement of atoms	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2016	#38
"the atoms are all there in the first place"	rug	Sep 2016	#42
It's not 'novel'. It's at the link.	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2016	#43
"the atoms are all there in the first place"	rug	Sep 2016	#56
"You start with a random clump of atoms". Yes, it is there.	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2016	#63
Starting a process with atoms does not mean "the atoms are all there in the first place".	rug	Sep 2016	#66
'coulda, woulda, shoulda... inexorably acquires key physocal attributes associated with life.'	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#152
A question outside the expertise of a chemist.	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#82
Lol, an appeal to authority.	rug	Oct 2016	#101
Part of the perceived problem	ZombieHorde	Sep 2016	#10
The question of where the atoms come from is what remains unanswered.	rug	Sep 2016	#16
I think that only has	ZombieHorde	Sep 2016	#36
Yes, closing one's mind is always an option. Trouble is, to close on the truth	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#154
Until I have good reason otherwise, I will regard smacking a human with a hammer	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#37
I do too because I generally value nonviolence	ZombieHorde	Sep 2016	#41
The difference is, in some sense, "subjective" -- but the "subjectivity" involved	struggle4progress	Sep 2016	#49
The difference may be objective,	ZombieHorde	Sep 2016	#60
For one thing, it takes a lot of pounding to piss off a rock.	ChairmanAgnostic	Oct 2016	#108
Theists Sill Waiting for the Origin of God Messiah.	Doodley	Sep 2016	#27
Scroll upthread.	rug	Sep 2016	#32
I gather the question of where God came from is not mine and mine alone.	Doodley	Sep 2016	#33
The real question: Did God have consent to	ChairmanAgnostic	Oct 2016	#109
And people complain about athiest militants.	Eko	Sep 2016	#28
Do you think the time will come when science will "finally prove" it?	rug	Sep 2016	#31
I think humans will destroy themselves before that.	Doodley	Sep 2016	#34
Of course.	Eko	Sep 2016	#35
So you have faith that scientists will discover the answer?	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#40
Ha, Ha.	Eko	Sep 2016	#44
But all of your response still avoided thr fact that science can only go so far.....	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#46
Sure, if you say so	Eko	Sep 2016	#48
Using "belief" and "faith" in place of evidence is a common tactic of the believer.	cleanhippie	Sep 2016	#54
Assertion of a fact without evidence is faith.	rug	Sep 2016	#57
Yeah, No evidence!!!	Eko	Sep 2016	#58
History is littered with scientific predictions that failed.	rug	Sep 2016	#59
Yes science is littered with dead theories...	uriel1972	Sep 2016	#64
"Science will find the answer" is a statement of faith without evidence.	rug	Sep 2016	#65
I agree...	uriel1972	Sep 2016	#67
I would instead say, 'science is the only credible tool for finding the answer to that question'	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#89
Post removed	Post removed	Oct 2016	#88
I know enough to deduce that there is no "we" at your keyboard.	rug	Oct 2016	#95
There's also historical track record that has your God of the gaps	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#87
The only gap here is in your education on the subject.	rug	Oct 2016	#96
Science can only go so far... says you.	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#86
So does anyone who understands the scientific method is not infinite.	rug	Oct 2016	#98
Actually, some of us understand math, physics and cosmology	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#85
Is that a yes?	rug	Oct 2016	#157
We've already shown how organic chemicals are spontaneously	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#83
You haven't at all.	rug	Oct 2016	#100
Where did the matter come from that was affected by the Big Bang?	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#115
lol..	opiate69	Oct 2016	#121
But being a non-scientist, and a believer in the Creator,	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#122
Simply put, we don't know.	opiate69	Oct 2016	#124
Understood. My belief is that the answer is alreasdy here. The Creator.	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#125
Do you expect these hypotheses to be proven?	rug	Oct 2016	#128
Do I expect "these hypotheses" to be proven?	opiate69	Oct 2016	#141
That's a hope not an expectation.	rug	Oct 2016	#142
Bzzt.. wrong again, sir carpet.	opiate69	Oct 2016	#143
Nice paraphrase of hope, opiate.	rug	Oct 2016	#144
sigh	opiate69	Oct 2016	#145
"The belief or expectation that something wished for can or will happen."	rug	Oct 2016	#146
Because I'm bored...	opiate69	Oct 2016	#185
Sure, I can see these lads and lassies sitting in a rockng-chair and,	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#155
In the sweet bye and bye.	rug	Oct 2016	#158
Thanks, rug. That's beautiful. One for my Favourites. Did you notice	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#161
The sig line? It's from Acts 4.	rug	Oct 2016	#163
Yes. But I tend not memorise chapter and verse. The great	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#168
The issue does come down to this:	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#39
What?	Eko	Sep 2016	#45
Proof is not something that is addressed by faith. Faith does not require faith,	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#47
Why cant it prove	Eko	Sep 2016	#50
That the Big Bang happened can be deduced from the movement of the universe.	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#51
Yes,	Eko	Sep 2016	#52
My argument is that one either postulates that there is a Creator,	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#68
Well,	Eko	Sep 2016	#70
Faith does not require proof.	guillaumeb	Sep 2016	#71
How can belief in something without evidence be positive?	cleanhippie	Sep 2016	#75
Explain how belief is positive or negative.	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#113
Being that this is the Religion group, I figured the type of belief were talking about was implied.	cleanhippie	Oct 2016	#147
Belief in a deity is an affirmation.	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#166
Until one postulates that there is a creator, there is no disagreement.	cleanhippie	Sep 2016	#74
You don't know that when you switch the living-room light on, it will	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#156
ummm no...	uriel1972	Sep 2016	#61
I don't need a basis to reject an unfounded and unprovable claim.	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#84
Good luck with that, as far as science will take you.	guillaumeb	Oct 2016	#114
Linguistic bullshit to justify belief in sky fairies	Roland99	Sep 2016	#53
Lackadaisical meme to promote bullshit.	rug	Sep 2016	#55
You're just filling in gaps with a fictional character	Bradical79	Sep 2016	#72
And you're just regurgitating tired, inaccurate and unoriginal memes.	rug	Sep 2016	#73
It's entirely accurate	Bradical79	Sep 2016	#76
I'll assume "an intelegent being" is a typo.	rug	Sep 2016	#78
Contemplate away, sir.	AtheistCrusader	Oct 2016	#90
"fucking prove it"?	rug	Oct 2016	#92
It's a long-winded god of the gaps argument.	pokerfan	Sep 2016	#62
Ayup. Pure mental laziness. A desire and willingness to suspend critical thinking...	Roland99	Sep 2016	#69
Pretty much	Bradical79	Sep 2016	#77
Yes it is a silly post.	rogerashton	Oct 2016	#105
Well, that was a complete waste of time . . .	hatrack	Oct 2016	#111
Thanks for that insight.	rug	Oct 2016	#117
What??	deathrind	Oct 2016	#112
The first describes many forms of life.	rug	Oct 2016	#116
The Universe is huge or infinite.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#118
That begs the question. How did the (natural) dumb matter and energy get there?	rug	Oct 2016	#119
It's a brute fact of nature that dumb matter and energy exist.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#120
The nature of those things belies that.	rug	Oct 2016	#123
You're arguing against the existence of a god unless you can explain who or what made god.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#126
No. The argument of infinite regression misses the point.	rug	Oct 2016	#127
Inventing a completely different and massively complex reality is no solution.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#129
You're asking fior a natural explanation for an event that would have to be supernatural.	rug	Oct 2016	#130
OK, I can play your game.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#131
"does not have to be explained" is a piss-poor answer, especially when science strives to explain it	rug	Oct 2016	#132
I don't think that is an answer, but you do.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#133
You miss again the difference between "doesn't have to" and "can't".	rug	Oct 2016	#134
If it can't be explained then it can be disregarded since the "can't" be explained	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#135
Define the evidence required.	rug	Oct 2016	#136
Show me that we live in a world that does not work through natural processes	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#137
No, the question at hand is how the world got here in the first place.	rug	Oct 2016	#138
I wrote: "You still need an answer for the problem of god's existence	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#139
If you reject both the idea of a creator and the idea of an infinte eternal universe, what's left?	rug	Oct 2016	#140
Early in this sub thread I wrote:	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#169
No matter how many (purely hypothetical) universe and multiverses,	rug	Oct 2016	#170
You have much the same issue concerning an always existing god.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#171
If the rationale is a natural one.	rug	Oct 2016	#172
But you are then claiming if reality is difficult to explain then it must be by magic	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#173
Magic is not logic. I'm sorry your difficulty in explaining has led you to that error.	rug	Oct 2016	#174
The arguments you make are arguments against your god.	cpwm17	Oct 2016	#183
It's time people see how Moshe Averick manipulated the quotes from Professor Pross	muriel_volestrangler	Oct 2016	#148
Last I heard, rug, Dawkins now describes himself as an agnostic. The facts	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#151
He allows a 0.0142 chance that he's wrong.	rug	Oct 2016	#160
Absolutely. He's been making more and more of an ass of himself, lately.	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#162
You do know that Einstein was an agnostic pantheist, right? He didn't believe in a personal god...	Humanist_Activist	Oct 2016	#176
Not believing in a personal God is not to be an agnostic. It is	Joe Chi Minh	Oct 2016	#184
Oh look, Rug posting a post that dishonestly quote-mines a scientist to support creationism...	Humanist_Activist	Oct 2016	#175
Rug's OP is an inside-joke. A reply to another over-the-top OP by another DUer.	DetlefK	Oct 2016	#177
You have it backwards. Check the time stamps on the OPs.	rug	Oct 2016	#179
Oh look. Humanist Activist is upset.	rug	Oct 2016	#178
Face it, rug, you're promoting an infamous intelligent design advocate	muriel_volestrangler	Oct 2016	#181
I'm not promoting anything, muriel.	rug	Oct 2016	#182
This is the way things work	anoNY42	Oct 2016	#180

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.