Moved Another step towards answering the question of life's origins - religion

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That's a brilliant picture of god launching asteroids, but where did he buy his overalls?

Day 0: The Lord created Walmart and saw that it was good.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think Leibniz's view is interesting (and it segues into Tegmark's view). God created "the best possible universe." A universe with much beauty but WITHOUT cancer or evil would have been incompatible with some mathematical constraints.

I think we are on a journey towards the best of all possible worlds. And that's a better possible world than one where no journey ever took place.

Could God make a better possible world without us in it? Sure. But why?

Thanks for the reply, Lion IRC. I've snipped your comments for brevity, but they all seemed reasonable (and IMO not incompatible with Leibniz' view).

 

[Elixir]

And that's a better possible world than one where no journey ever took place.

Is the journey the only thing that’s “better” (your judgment? God’s?) about it?
If not, what’s better about it?
I’m truly curious.

 

[steve_bank]

When an asteroid hits Earth it must be part if god's plan does it not?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think Leibniz's view is interesting (and it segues into Tegmark's view). God created "the best possible universe." A universe with much beauty but WITHOUT cancer or evil would have been incompatible with some mathematical constraints.

I think we are on a journey towards the best of all possible worlds. And that's a better possible world than one where no journey ever took place.

Could God make a better possible world without us in it? Sure. But why?

Thanks for the reply, Lion IRC. I've snipped your comments for brevity, but they all seemed reasonable (and IMO not incompatible with Leibniz' view).

I would disagree. I think that we are on a journey to A possible world. It is not the "best of all possible worlds".

Where it falls for some given definition of "best" and "worst" depends heavily on what we do here and now every day, and whether we work to build something or whether we take our hands off the reigns and let it go to shit.

 

[Elixir]

Where it falls for some given definition of "best" and "worst" depends heavily on what we do here and now every day, and whether we work to build something or whether we take our hands off the reigns and let it go to shit.

Ah, so free will lives on?
Or is it just that we don’t yet know what we will have done, robotically or otherwise?

 

[Learner]

When an asteroid hits Earth it must be part if god's plan does it not?

There is no asteroid hitting the earth in Revelation, therefore it isn't part of Gods plan.

When an asteroid hits? When is that actually going to be, according to science data?

 

[bilby]

When an asteroid hits Earth it must be part if god's plan does it not?

There is no asteroid hitting the earth in Revelation, therefore it isn't part of Gods plan.

When an asteroid hits? When is that actually going to be, according to science data?

Asteroids hit the Earth every single day. In fact, about one every every two hours.

Asteroids big enough to do serious damage (or even be noticeable) are less common; An asteroid greater than 1km in diameter hits about once every half a million years, and one 5km across about every 20 million years.

There is exactly zero reason to expect that one many km across won't hit tomorrow though - our sky surveys are far from comprehensive enough to guarantee that we would see it coming.

That's "according to science data".

 

[Learner]

Learner

So god intentionally crated the solar system, so asteroids are intentional. Does it not follow logically that asteroid strikes on Earth are then intentional?

If it were to happen and all is destroyed...then you'd be right. But it's doesn't logically follow the biblical context - if you're suggesting this asteroid hit is definitely happening, when there's no written mention of asteroids destroying the earth in the bible. There is no intention for this to happen IOW

 

[bilby]

if you're suggesting this asteroid hit, is definitely happening

The Earth is four and a half billion years old, and may well be around for another seven or eight billion years. Extinction level asteroid strikes are known to have occurred in the past (the Chicxulub impact, a mere 65 million years [or 1.4% of the age of the planet] ago, being the most famous); They will certainly occur again.

It is definitely happening.

You might as well say "If you're suggesting that somebody will get struck by lightning again..." - it's impossible to predict who will be struck, or when, but it's a gold plated certainty that it will happen.

Intention has nothing to do with it either. If lightning strikes were intentional, then either I would be a charred crisp that was once human; Or I am a true speaker of the words of the gods. I have certainly derided your god sufficiently to show that either it doesn't intend to smite anyone, or it doesn't dare smite me.

 

[bilby]

But it's doesn't logically follow the biblical context

As "the biblical context" is one of pure fiction, nothing (or anything and everything) logically follows it.

When you make up stories, literally anything can happen in the story. Logic is not involved.

 

[Learner]

But it's doesn't logically follow the biblical context

As "the biblical context" is one of pure fiction, nothing (or anything and everything) logically follows it.

When you make up stories, literally anything can happen in the story. Logic is not involved.

Steve was entertaining the idea the existence of God for the sake of argument (thanks Steve).

God and bible naturally wouldn't be logical even if it were all true!

I mean, being 'raised from the dead?' Sounds fantastic don't it? How many people get to witness these things everyday? It's uncommon and therefore not logical, which is quite understandable.

 

[bilby]

But it's doesn't logically follow the biblical context

As "the biblical context" is one of pure fiction, nothing (or anything and everything) logically follows it.

When you make up stories, literally anything can happen in the story. Logic is not involved.

Steve was entertaining the idea the existence of God for the sake of argument (thanks Steve).

God and bible naturally wouldn't be logical even if it were all true!

I mean, being 'raised from the dead?' Sounds fantastic don't it? How many people get to witness these things everyday? It's uncommon and therefore not logical, which is quite understandable.

5km diameter asteroid strikes are uncommon.

But completely logical.

Being raised from the dead is just a contradiction; "Dead" is defined as the state from which one cannot be raised; Anything else is by definition not death, but merely a deep coma.

The idea that an individual can be "raised from the dead" is not even wrong. It's nonsensical.

The ressurection is as logical and reasonable as Jabberwocky.

 

[Learner]

But it's doesn't logically follow the biblical context

As "the biblical context" is one of pure fiction, nothing (or anything and everything) logically follows it.

When you make up stories, literally anything can happen in the story. Logic is not involved.

Steve was entertaining the idea the existence of God for the sake of argument (thanks Steve).

God and bible naturally wouldn't be logical even if it were all true!

I mean, being 'raised from the dead?' Sounds fantastic don't it? How many people get to witness these things everyday? It's uncommon and therefore not logical, which is quite understandable.

5km diameter asteroid strikes are uncommon.

But completely logical.

I see, as uncommon as it is - non have destroyed the human race, if we're going with the initial conversation - intentional destruction.

Being raised from the dead is just a contradiction; "Dead" is defined as the state from which one cannot be raised; Anything else is by definition not death, but merely a deep coma.

Funny enough. Some verses describe death as a deep sleep.

The irony below...

The idea that an individual can be "raised from the dead" is not even wrong. It's nonsensical.

The ressurection is as logical and reasonable as Jabberwocky.

Nonsensical?
The great irony of contradiction:

As you gather from the science. You (atheists) actually believe 'life comes from dead matter'. Perhaps you didn't realise or have forgotten this accepted fact is contradictory to the "nonsensical" as you put it, argument.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps you didn't realise or have forgotten this accepted fact is contradictory to the "nonsensical" as you put it, argument.

I understand that accepted fact, and how it is completely irrelevant to human lives.

Or indeed those of any complex organisms.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was a simple microscopic proto-biological sac of biochemicals?

Or are you just flinging random shit and hoping that nobody will notice that you are woefully out of your depth, and utterly incompetent to even discuss this?

 

[steve_bank]

As an atheist who rejects any intent or purpose to reality, reality is what it is.

There is no better or worse or best possible. That is pre 20th century religion and philosophy.

Whether we can take conscious actions that will create a more desirable future is an open question.

Looking at the world as it is today and always has been I doubt it.

And that leads into philosophies and religions that offer a means of rationalization and coping with reality.

 

[Learner]

Perhaps you didn't realise or have forgotten this accepted fact is contradictory to the "nonsensical" as you put it, argument.

I understand that accepted fact, and how it is completely irrelevant to human lives.

Or indeed those of any complex organisms.

Life/complex organisms coming from 'inanimate dead things' is irrelevant to the very discussion? Come on bilby.. which discussion or thread did you think you were engaging in?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was a simple microscopic proto-biological sac of biochemicals?

Complex organisms? Yes. Being physically human just like us is what I suggest.

Or are you just flinging random shit and hoping that nobody will notice that you are woefully out of your depth, and utterly incompetent to even discuss this?

It's the former, the one above where I respond to your "simple microscopic proto-biological sac of biochemicals" query.

 

[steve_bank]

Inanimate and animate are subjective terms at best when it comes to debate.

Natural 'inanimate' chemical reactions occur all the time.

 

[Elixir]

Natural 'inanimate' chemical reactions occur all the time.

Can you give an example of an "animate chemical reaction"?
I'm not well versed, but it looks like an oxymoron.

 

[steve_bank]

Huh?

Poking at Learner. We are the result of 'inanimate' chemical reactions.