Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories

[L Gilbert]

No, you can't say that given enough time etc. that life will develop. If you want to say that then you have to back it up with scientific hypothesis. The hypothesis that life will only begin in 1 of 1 billion circumstances on planets which are suitable for sustaining some kind of life form is backed by scinece. People should not make unfounded statements. Unless you are prepared to back it up with something concrete.

It is scientific, child. Guess you've never heard of the laws and theories of statistics. http://www.probabilitytheory.info/ THAT is concrete mathematics and arithmetic.
Um, BTW, you do your own share of making groundless statements, so, Mr. Pot, I'd wouldn't be calling Mr. Kettle black.
Also BTW, one can't back up anything using scientific hyp[othesis. One proposes a hypothesis, then backs it up with scientific data or theory or law or any combination of the three. I'm pretty sure that is taught in one of the higher grades of elementary school or in a lower grade of junior highschool.

You see, the problem is, the planet earth could be the only planet which supports life. That's not based on ancient religious dogma because that holds no water at all. It is based on science. I hope that doesn't confuse the issue for you.

Earth might be the only planet that supports life. It's extremely unlikely, though, and we won't know for sure until we've been absolutely everywhere in the universe(s).

 

[hermanntrude]

I can "see" my Altima sitting in the driveway. The idea came to be a reality. God has never done
anything of the sort. When the automobile was a "creative idea", there probably was many people,
who didn't believe the "idea", but it became reality.

my point was that "rationality", as most people define it, is all very well but you can't put down creativity. creativity and emotion seem to be strongly linked. IMO this is because rationality and emotion are not mutually exclusive, and the binders are intelligent self-examination and control.

 

[lieexpsr]

Mr. Gilbert- This is not about me so I would suggest that you stop the personal attacks against me and address the issue as I do. For example:

"It is scientific, child. Guess you've never heard of the laws and theories of statistics."

and

"Um, BTW, you do your own share of making groundless statements, so, Mr. Pot, I'd wouldn't be calling Mr. Kettle black.

and

" I'm pretty sure that is taught in one of the higher grades of elementary school or in a lower grade of junior highschool."

There is a difference between rebutting somebody's ideas and attacking the person with insults because of his ideas. I suggest that you think about that distinction Mr. Gilbert.

 

[lieexpsr]

Mr. Gilbert says: "Earth might be the only planet that supports life. It's extremely unlikely, though, and we won't know for sure until we've been absolutely everywhere in the universe(s)."

Obviously not, we need only discover life in one other place which could very well be one of Saturn's moons, which is currently the place whoich getting science excited.

You see, I don't need to attack your person, I just attack a ridiculous statement.

 

[karrie]

Perhaps because people realize that things without brains are incapable of being sentient. Can anyone point to the brains of the universe(s)?

Really Gilbert? That seems like a pretty humancentric view of intelligence. Especially since our brains boil down (okay, gross wording), to nothing more than a vessel to contain electrical impulses. I've never seen sound evidence that it wouldn't be posssible to create the same sort of communicative energy flow in any other setting. We simply don't know enough about the universe to say that brains are the only possibility for sentience.

 

[hermanntrude]

Mr. Gilbert says: "Earth might be the only planet that supports life. It's extremely unlikely, though, and we won't know for sure until we've been absolutely everywhere in the universe(s)."

Obviously not, we need only discover life in one other place which could very well be one of Saturn's moons, which is currently the place whoich getting science excited.

You see, I don't need to attack your person, I just attack a ridiculous statement.

"Mr. Gilbert's" statement was that to find out that no other planets are inhabited, we'd have to search everywhere. this is true. It is also true that to find out that another planet IS inhabited, we need only find one. the statements are not mutually exclusive.

By the way u needn't go to saturn for possible life. Jupiter is much closer and has at least one moon with liquid water.

 

[L Gilbert]

Mr. Gilbert- This is not about me so I would suggest that you stop the personal attacks against me and address the issue as I do. For example:

"It is scientific, child. Guess you've never heard of the laws and theories of statistics."

and

"Um, BTW, you do your own share of making groundless statements, so, Mr. Pot, I'd wouldn't be calling Mr. Kettle black.

and

" I'm pretty sure that is taught in one of the higher grades of elementary school or in a lower grade of junior highschool."

There is a difference between rebutting somebody's ideas and attacking the person with insults because of his ideas. I suggest that you think about that distinction Mr. Gilbert.

Stuff it.

 

[L Gilbert]

Really Gilbert? That seems like a pretty humancentric view of intelligence. Especially since our brains boil down (okay, gross wording), to nothing more than a vessel to contain electrical impulses. I've never seen sound evidence that it wouldn't be posssible to create the same sort of communicative energy flow in any other setting. We simply don't know enough about the universe to say that brains are the only possibility for sentience.

I thought it was evident that I was using the word "brains" figuratively.

 

[karrie]

I thought it was evident that I was using the word "brains" figuratively.

lol... my bad. But, just because we can't see something, haven't discovered it yet, especially when speaking of the universe (she says with theatrical stress on the word), doesn't mean it's not there. Heck, we can't even prove that Saturn's moon is or isn't crawling with life, and it's, relatively speaking, right next door!

 

[L Gilbert]

lol... my bad. But, just because we can't see something, haven't discovered it yet, especially when speaking of the universe (she says with theatrical stress on the word), doesn't mean it's not there. Heck, we can't even prove that Saturn's moon is or isn't crawling with life, and it's, relatively speaking, right next door!

Ah, the god argument attached to the universe. Cute. lol I've never seen leprachauns either.
However, I haven't read or heard anything about systems of synapses, electrochemical interactions, etc. happening in space unless they were contained in critters' noggins.

 

[hermanntrude]

Ah, the god argument attached to the universe. Cute. lol
However, I haven't read or heard anything about systems of synapses, electrochemical interactions, etc. happening in space unless they were contained in critters' noggins.

Just cos u never heard of it doesnt neccesarily mean it doesnt happen. most likely though

 

[L Gilbert]

Just cos u never heard of it doesnt neccesarily mean it doesnt happen. most likely though

Hermie, I was returning the literal translation back to Karrie. It was a joke.

 

[hermanntrude]

Hermie, I was returning the literal translation back to Karrie. It was a joke.

whoops. Should have caught that. I did think it was an uncharacteristically illogical thing for u to be saying

 

[eh1eh]

Really Gilbert? That seems like a pretty humancentric view of intelligence. Especially since our brains boil down (okay, gross wording), to nothing more than a vessel to contain electrical impulses. I've never seen sound evidence that it wouldn't be posssible to create the same sort of communicative energy flow in any other setting. We simply don't know enough about the universe to say that brains are the only possibility for sentience.

Sorry to jump back, but matter and energy are the same thing in different forms. Your 'brain' is made from matter and energy. Neither can be destroyed, only converted to different forms. The net results of matter conversion is zero. So the form the matter and energy combines in can be limitless. So I guess we have limitless possibilities for life in any form. E=MC2.

 

[karrie]

Ah, the god argument attached to the universe. Cute. lol I've never seen leprachauns either.
However, I haven't read or heard anything about systems of synapses, electrochemical interactions, etc. happening in space unless they were contained in critters' noggins.

Ha! I see leprechauns all the time, so there! :angel8: lol

 

[karrie]

Sorry to jump back, but matter and energy are the same thing in different forms. Your 'brain' is made from matter and energy. Neither can be destroyed, only converted to different forms. The net results of matter conversion is zero. So the form the matter and energy combines in can be limitless. So I guess we have limitless possibilities for life in any form. E=MC2.

how true. whether looking at it from a spiritual or a scientific view, how true.

 

[talloola]

Exactly. Most people don't think deeply enough to be able to explain themselves to themselves. They are content to follow others' philosophies like the various theologies, atheist philosophies like Dawkins' ideas, etc. Your life's an event of self-discovery, not a thing for others explain to you what you are.

That's right, I am so happy with my own type of belief system, but I do feel dissapointed when,
(and there was one not long ago), others say that, we are not as good , as people who
believe in a religion. That is so wrong. There is good and bad people on both sides, and what I
do notice, we are not "so judgmental" as religious people, but they certainly like to judge us,
and try to make us think we are doing something wrong.
If I was doing something wrong, I could never feel so good about my life.

 

[karrie]

That's right, I am so happy with my own type of belief system, but I do feel dissapointed when,
(and there was one not long ago), others say that, we are not as good , as people who
believe in a religion. That is so wrong. There is good and bad people on both sides, and what I
do notice, we are not "so judgmental" as religious people, but they certainly like to judge us,
and try to make us think we are doing something wrong.
If I was doing something wrong, I could never feel so good about my life.

I've consistently talked about the need for religious tolerance on this forum. I know a lot of atheists who are tolerant of religion, and I don't think they are any better or worse than anyone else. But in any type of belief system, there are judgemental people. Read through lieexpsr's posts, and try saying that atheists aren't 'so judgemental'. It's simply not true of all atheists. Atheists are no more and no less human and flawed than the human and flawed Christians.

To be clear, I really don't think Catholicism is any better or worse than any other belief system on the planet, atheism included. i think it's all a very personal choice.

 

[lieexpsr]

"Mr. Gilbert's" statement was that to find out that no other planets are inhabited, we'd have to search everywhere. this is true. It is also true that to find out that another planet IS inhabited, we need only find one. the statements are not mutually exclusive.

By the way u needn't go to saturn for possible life. Jupiter is much closer and has at least one moon with liquid water.

Why Herman, IMO that's just plain silly. We need only discover life on one other satellite of any one solar system to prove that there is life on other planets. Proof positive and it may be as close as one of Saturn's moon!

And I mention a moon of Saturn because that is currently the best hope of those who work on such things. You of course may not know that so that's why I mentioned it. It's better to search in the most likely places when you lose your keys. Likewise when you are looking for the parallel genesis.

The moon is Enceladus.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7159

Enjoy!

 

[lieexpsr]

I've consistently talked about the need for religious tolerance on this forum. I know a lot of atheists who are tolerant of religion, and I don't think they are any better or worse than anyone else. But in any type of belief system, there are judgemental people. Read through lieexpsr's posts, and try saying that atheists aren't 'so judgemental'. It's simply not true of all atheists. Atheists are no more and no less human and flawed than the human and flawed Christians.

To be clear, I really don't think Catholicism is any better or worse than any other belief system on the planet, atheism included. i think it's all a very personal choice.

Please don't discuss me in a derogatory way. I the interest of keeping the peace I will not rebut your claim. I don't run around telling others that you are ........ whatever accusation I could make against you. And there are several btw.

thanks, lieexpsr.