Neil deGrasse Tyson destroys argument for intelligent design

[eridani]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/05/neil_degrasse_tyson_destroys_argument_for_intelligent_design_i_cannot_look_at_the_universe_and_say_that_yes_theres_a_god_and_this_god_cares_about_my_life_at_all/

On the “Nightly Show” Wednesday evening, Neil deGrasse Tyson went toe-to-toe with celebrity pastor Carl Lentz and comedian Tom Papa on a panel debating science and religion, saying that he rejected the notion of kindness and benevolence that goes hand in hand with peoples’ belief in God.

“Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness,” Tyson explained.

“I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence,” he continued. “There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.”

[KG]

1. evidence, schmevidence. ya gotta believe!

[7962]

25. Well, faith IS a major part of religion.

[bjobotts]

132. Faith is used to avoid critical thinking.U R told what to believe.

[7962]

146. Thats the opposite of faith.

[randys1]

118. Hey, watch it. I had some schmevidence with my steak the other night, loved it.

The trick is to add a little soy sauce.

Low sodium version, of course.

[nilram]

136. low sodium, perfect. here's another health tip

Fever-Tree tonic water. Uses real sugar, not high-fructose corn syrup. Makes a G+T more healthful.

[DLevine]

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a national treasure. nt

[hifiguy]

72. He really is

and he fully fills the huge shoes of Carl Sagan as a wonderful spokesman for science and reason.

I can't think of higher praise.

[randys1]

120. He gives me faith in humanity...get it, faith...me, humanity...yep

[CrispyQ]

202. It's very high praise!

I love them both & miss Carl soooooo much! "Contact," one of the best ends to a story ever! The movie sucked bad.

[DetlefK]

3. The thermodynamic argument behind Intelligent Design has a simple mathematical error.

The argument of ID is the following:

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, entropy always increases over time.

But life is a state of matter with an exceptionally low entropy.

Conclusion: Life does not stem from a natural process.

--------------------------------------------

Their error: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is only valid in the mathematical limit of an infinitely large system without borders and with infinite particles.

Infinite particles => The probability for natural processes destroying entropy is zero, because you divide by infinity.

But we don't have infinite particles. In a realistic system we still have so many particles we cannot imagine (1 Mol = 6.022*10^23 particles) but it's still NOT infinity.

And from the simple model of Gay-Lussac's streaming-experiment, we can most easily calculate that in a system with a finite amount of particles the probability for entropy spontaneously being destroyed is astronomically tiny, but it NEVER reaches zero.

Conclusion: The argument of ID DOES NOT exclude natural processes as a cause for life-formation.

[rogerashton]

6. I never heard that argument before.

But for what it is worth, you can add Prigogine's observation that, far from equilibrium, thermodynamic processes are nonlinear and could include local concentrations of decreasing entropy. I believe the expansion of the universe adds another complication, but not sure -- an astrophysicist I ain't.

But I doubt that will persuade anybody.

[DetlefK]

10. Non-equilibrium processes are the latest research into the beginnings of life.

The theory is that an icy comet with organic impurities (Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Sulphur) crashes into the planet. The crash creates a chemical environment out of equilibrium, where the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics no longer counts. The result are complicated molecules.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. Yes, but doesn't even require infinite number of particles

Overall, at any given moment, the universe is less ordered (energicly) than all the preceding moments. For every local concentration of energy, more energy is dispersed to make that happen so there is a net increase in the disorder of energy.

Life is locally organizing, but beyond its cellular boundaries it creates more energy disorder outside than inside its body.

For example, to feed a human we have to cultivate large areas of earth or hunt/gather large quantities of food. The energy from the sun captured by the plants is ultimately dispersed by our breath and excretia and heat radiation, creating greater energy disorder in the larger system of the earth.

Our human life-force that is mining/drilling energy materials disperses that concentration out into the world as heat exhaust.

Even when the sun and planets formed by concentrating resources by gravity, the energy was converted by fusion and mostly radiated out into space. Most of that energy will travel infinitely forever without hitting any mass. The rotation of the planets is slowing down as tidal forces dissipate energy as heat.

[DetlefK]

22. It would be interesting to do relativistic thermodynamics.

What happens when the thermodynamic volume gets so big that the distances between the particles get so big that one end of the volume is no longer in equilibrium with the other end of the volume?

For example:
If the sun shines on one side of planet Earth, how long does it take for the thermal energy and the winds to reach the night-side of the planet?
How many interactions back-and-forth between the day-side and the night-side would it take until equilibrium is reached?

[hatrack]

35. In addition to that, Earth is not a closed system

It's amazing how some people can forget THE SUN when the occasion calls for it.

[central scrutinizer]

128. Yeah, Mr. smartypants, well the sun just set.

So, I can entropy all I want right now, Ben Carson told me so.

[Hortensis]

170. Entropy is my favorite state, actually.

And I thank God every day for low-sodium soy sauce, proof that He loves me.

[eridani]

159. I think of it as a nuclear reactor that is 93 million miles away from the nearest elementary school

[whopis01]

162. To quote the great MC Hawking

The second law is quite precise about where it applies.

Only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.

The earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun.

So fuck the damn creationists. Doomsday get my gun.

https://m.

[0rganism]

206. it is rooted in some rather gross assumptions...

that life is some kind of purely enthalpic state ("exceptionally low entropy" as you put it -- how are they measuring this?)

that the Earth's biosphere is a closed system (it is not)

that there is some kind of supernatural benevolent force capable of performing assembly and augmentation over time, whereas nature and evolution cannot

apparently some people are quite comfortable with these assumptions.

[DetlefK]

212. Entropy is a statistical/mathematical attribute, rather than a physical one.

Entropy correlates to the lack of information you have about a system. If you know exactly what each particle of the system is like, entropy is zero. The less you can tell them apart, the higher entropy gets. If you cannot tell a random particle apart from another random particle, entropy has reached its maximum in that system.

The question is: How many different instances of the system can be created?

The atoms in a rock are pretty much exchangable, so entropy is high.
On the other hand, it's very hard to have random atoms in a life-form switch roles without creating something entirely different. The role of each atom is pretty narrowly determined. Entropy is low.

[0rganism]

221. low relative to a rock, you mean

seems to me, on a scale from rocks to microprocessors, life forms are going to be on the rocky side

[DetlefK]

226. The smallest features in microprocessors are 15-20 nm. The smallest feature in an organism is <1nm.

[pinstikfartherin]

4. I love listening to him Science.

And I love this response even more. I don't understand how there's this need to feel we have a creator. The natural world is amazing! If anything, "God" is the energy and molecules that make up our universe, IMO, not some human-like entity.

[Person 2713]

43. +1

[madokie]

5. if there is a god

I don't want anything to do with it, him or her.

[hobbit709]

8. "Man has rarely if ever dreamed up a god superior to himself."

"Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child"

[AllyCat]

15. Well that sure is a great statement.

Never heard it before. Fitting.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. That's either Lazarus Long or Jubal Harshaw speaking from Robert A. Heinlein's typewriter !

[hifiguy]

74. Money quote:

"Gods always behave like the people who make them."

Zora Neale Hurston

Funny how that always applies.

[LittleGirl]

7. I used to be

a Catholic. When Ireland disclosed the 'child abuser priests' that were reassigned, I felt really bad for the victims. That was the moment I gave myself permission to NOT believe in a God anymore or a church. I used to believe I was spiritual, but I'm not. I just don't believe it anymore and I fought it for years and years.

We're all here by chance is what I believe now.
None of us make it out alive.
Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust.

[leftynyc]

14. I think there is a separation

between religion and a belief in a higher power. One really has nothing to do with another. Religion is man made.

[7962]

28. Very brief and powerful statement. Many here wont understand it.

I believe that the bible has passages where organized religion is not looked upon favorably, or so I've heard

[mopinko]

37. imho, "spirituality" is an evolutionary holdover

from the days of clan and tribal living.
we all want the big monkey to save us, and tell us how to stay safe.

[leftynyc]

44. Disagree

I don't think the higher power has fuck all to do with our everyday lives. I really have no idea if one exists or not - I just keep an open mind and remember that belief in a higher power (some call that G-d) has nothing to do with manmade religions.

[restorefreedom]

47. i agree

religion is a human made construct designed to house not only the beliefs, but the community aspects of common belief, proscribed behavior for that group, and yes, finances (or "tithes" or donations).

religion is not required for belief or spirituality imo.

personally, my spiritually has become much healthier since i gave up religion.

[leftynyc]

56. I'm sure it has

but I have a different issue. I identify very strongly with my Jewish faith but the reality is that one can be Jewish and not even believe in G-d. There really is no core set of beliefs (like believing Jesus is the messiah is necessary to be a Christian) that Jews need to believe Being Jewish is how you live your life. That's what defines a Jew. But believing in a higher power has nothing to do with religion. Unfortunately, not many people buy that precept.

[restorefreedom]

59. i never thought of that regarding judaism

i think many assume that the abrahamic religions require belief in the one G-d. as a former catholic who is now a jain/earth/buddhist hybrid, i get what you are saying though. many faith practices, especially the dharmic ones i am most interested in, do not require belief in a deity of any kind. there is an acknowledgement of spirituality, and many believe in spiritual beings, even gods, but atheism is compatable with many so called religions.

i don't know why whether others believe "in G-d" is so important to so many people. i mean, fine, we can all get our own spiritual houses in order, but who cares what others do? its like some people are afraid they will "catch it" if they are with people of different beliefs or no belief. kinda sad imo.

[leftynyc]

61. Agree

And mostly because religion has been the cause of so much strife in human history. The my G-d has a bigger dick than your G-d attitude will be the end of us eventually.

[restorefreedom]

62. ugh. sad but probably true. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

167. And certainly some folks- like 12 steppers- are comfortable doing all sorts of semantic gymnastics

Around certain words, from what I've seen.

Personally, I'm of the school that says if a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

And while I'm all for people believing whatever personally gets them through the night, if someone wants to have a theological debate with me as to why I dont believe in ___, they had best be prepared to give me some sort of working definition of exactly what ____ is, that they think I'm supposed to believe or not believe.

[snooper2]

182. Yep, The opening scene of 2001 a Space Odyssey captured it quite nicely

2001: A Space Odyssey - The Dawn of Man

[mountain grammy]

33. Same here.. took years to find myself

and found I'm completely comfortable being an atheist.

[hifiguy]

76. Of all the ways to divide people into two groups

I have found that one of the most illuminating is to call one group "believers" in the sense that they deeply feel some need to believe in something, usually religion, and one group "skeptics" who always ash "why" particularly when confronted with non-provable received "wisdom."

I was born a skeptic. I seriously doubted the existence of the Abrahamic "god" by the time I was 8 or 10 because the fairy tales made far less sense than Santa Claus, was an agnostic strongly leaning towards atheism by 16 or so, and finally puton my big-boy shoes and got off the fence when I saw "Cosmos" when it first ran. Skeptics are the people who are responsible for, I would argue, all human progress. They want to know what and why. Believers are content to moo their way through life without ever wondering.

"These are a few of the things hydrogen atoms can do given 14 billion years."

"I'd rather know than believe."

Carl Sagan, who remains to this day one of my bare handful of personal heroes.

And when people say "science hasn't disproved the existence of god" I remind them that we humans are pretty new to this "science" thing. Three hundred years ago women were burned as witches when there were outbreaks of disease. We've come rather a long way from Galileo and Newton to relativity and the quantum, but we still have a long, long ways to go in our understanding of this vast and wonderful universe.

[mountain grammy]

229. Cosmos had a big impact on me as well.

It was aired at a time of huge turmoil in my life. Watching helped me find some perspective and was a great bonding experience with my sons.
Carl Sagan was truly amazing. He left us too soon. I wonder if he ever knew how many lives he affected.

[Warpy]

106. Unfortunately, that requires a couple of very uncomfortable admissions that theists aren't ready to

make: first, that the universe is completely impersonal and no one is looking out for you and second, that you are of absolutely no importance at all to the universe or even this particular small planet.

Flying without a net is not for everyone.

[GeorgeGist]

9. What designed God?

[caraher]

11. Magic Man done it?

[Orrex]

13. God always existed, because bible.

Or something.

[hifiguy]

77. It is far more plausible that a mechanistic universe

based on the laws of quantum physics and relativity (and whatever may lie behind and unify them) has always existed than an invisible man in the sky. Makes far more sense. Way too much for some people.

If one plausible interpretation of cosmology is correct, new universes can pop into existence on the "other side" of the singularity at the center of a black hole.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

181. And even that seems implausible when you think about it. We're used to everything having...

...a beginning and an ending. So, when did the mechanistic universe begin, and where did it come from? What is it?

That it "has always existed" makes no sense.

[snooper2]

183. there is no time for god...

Stephen Hawking has it right-

[whopis01]

163. Supergod. n/t

[stonecutter357]

12. K&R!

[IHateTheGOP]

16. Prayer works better if you take the antibiotics.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Would you like the Noah's Ark antibiotics or the ones that were intelligently designed?

[ladyVet]

20. Being "created" by something was a way for early manking to make sense of the world.

They didn't understand how or why things were the way they were, so something big and powerful must have made it. There must be a reason why things happened, why one tribe member died of a sickness while another lived. Why the rains dried up, or there were floods. Why the animals weren't around to be hunted, or why they hunted us.

If there is any sort of creator, it's the natural laws of the universe. Thus, science. Science explains things, belief in a creator being does not. Science trumps faith. Faith that one creator being is greater than another leads to pain, death and subjugation. Science does not.

[hifiguy]

79. You're in the finest of company.

Einstein himself said very nearly exactly the same thing.

[ladyVet]

156. I am proud to be in the company of thinking beings. ;)

I probably lifted the wording from something he wrote/said (innocently lifted, please note!).

[FreedomRain]

154. Douglas Adams -

Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? - you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs...

Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2
Cambridge U.K., September 1998

[hifiguy]

210. Adams had so many wonderful and clever quotes.

My favorite:

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[AngryAmish]

21. We have a lot to learn as a species.

[Nac Mac Feegle]

23. That ain't right

someone had better check their quotes.

[-none]

24. I gots a question.

If stars are made of atoms and our galaxy is only one of very many galaxies scattered all over the universe, then how can our galaxy contain more stars than there are atoms in the universe?
The verbiage in that graphic does not compute.

[7962]

29. That never stops things like that from being spread around as truth!

[Travis_0004]

125. Maybe the quote is

There are more stars in our galaxy than Adams in our universe.

I know about 5 adams. Adams family, Ansel Adams, that guy on mythbusters. . . .

[AngryAmish]

126. ...

http://worldsendshop.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Adam+Ant.jpg

[7962]

130. Another good one. But not as good as your LAST one!

[fasttense]

30. I can not get my head around that quote

If stars are made of atoms and galaxies make up the universe, then there can not be more stars than atoms.

Was he making a joke? What am I missing in that quote?

[fishwax]

32. the only thing you're missing is that it isn't a real quote

[ryan_cats]

42. That

That is a joke, yes?

[aidbo]

152. It is a joke, yes.

I think it's some kind of statement about reading quotes on the Internet.

[tabasco]

119. Why would you post something that clearly wrongly attributes a quote to someone?

Please explain, what is your purpose for doing that?

[AngryAmish]

121. Are you new here?

Crimony.

[tabasco]

169. That's not an answer.

Try again.

[AngryAmish]

171. You will get nothing, and long for it's absence.

What is wrong with you?

[tabasco]

177. There is nothing wrong with me.

I'm not the liar.

[Takket]

142. It's a joke

He actually said there are more atoms in your body than stars in the universe.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Yet we think we can be stewards of the planet

Self-appointed stewards at that.

[robersl]

27. How did life start?

OK, so there is no big guy in the sky with a long beard type of God - I'll grant you that. But how exactly do you explain Life without some sort of Creator?

I always hear this stuff about comets crashing or lightning striking and causing complex molecules to appear. And yes, its been done in the lab.

But complex molecules are not Life. A one-celled living thing still needs an extremely complex cell structure and genome to exist, and within the chromosomes there must be the impetus to replicate itself. Maybe you can make the case that through genetic mutation and selection one-celled creatures ended up spawning a chain of life that developed into what we have today, but no one ever, ever addresses the issue of how the level of complexity necessary to start this chain off could possibly just come into being.

So the chest-thumping "sciency" people on threads like this, in my opinion, are exhibiting the same level of magical thinking as the fundamentalists. They have apparently never closely examined their own belief that this is all just an accident of nature, which idea, to my mind, is much less likely than the notion that there is an intelligent creator behind this vast and complex universe.

[7962]

31. And it also should have happened elsewhere

Now I do believe there is intelligent life out there somewhere, but we havent found any in years of searching to show anything anywhere. And I dont even think life elsewhere means there isnt a higher power. Who is to say he didnt create life elsewhere? MAybe to see who developed better?
Its always an interesting conversation because the universe is so vast.
But Tyson cannot prove there isnt a higher power either. Merely state his opinion

[kwolf68]

48. Sooo.

Because one can't prove something exist means it does? That's ridiculous.

Tyson is making educated postulates based on various data, knowledge and academic disciplines to provide a (at this time) reasonable analysis of how it all began. Chances are he is NOT right, at least not fully, but he is pushing in the right direction.

[7962]

63. No, thats not what I said. Just that its not an absolute.

There is no God because we have volcanoes tornadoes and hurricanes? Pretty weak.
But it seems as though if we are all here because of some random incident, then it also seems as though the same random incident should have also happened elsewhere. Yet we have zero evidence that it has. Which makes us, and earth, even more amazing.

[PassingFair]

92. I think he said we have no benevolent god.

Given the facts....

[hobbit709]

54. If you believe in imaginary sky wizards then you will believe anything.

“Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.” -Ambrose Bierce.

[7962]

64. If you dont believe in something, you'll fall for anything.

Along with your "sky wizard".

[hifiguy]

81. The laws of nature that have been discovered in the scientific era

- call it from Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo on - have explained almost incomprehensibly large parts of how nature and the universe work, though there is still far more to learn than we already know.

And remember, we humans are pretty new at this science thing, thanks to chistianity and the ensuing Dark Ages, when science itself was considered to be "diabolic." Three hundred years ago we were so unabashedly ignorant that the "logical" response to an outbreak of disease was burning the "witches" that "caused" it.

We have done rather well. But we are still a few more Einsteins or Newtons away from discovering all the secrets of the universe, and Einsteins and Newtons don't come along all that often. And we have to steer away from the navel-gazing science-fiction string theoreticians who have not in 20+ yeare proposed even ONE experiment to test their mathematically beautiful but utterly unscientific speculations.

Read Lee Smolin's books. Understandable, refreshing and quite brilliant.

[skepticscott]

165. Not believing in "god" doesn't mean

that you "believe in nothing". How that silly fundy meme got transferred here is a mystery.

[Warren DeMontague]

168. Possibly the most idiotic piece of bumper sticker non-wisdom ever floated by the bs brigade.

Sure, yes, believe in something-anything- because unbelievers have no moral foundation and are inherently...

http://time.com/money/4102817/altruistic-religion-charity-generous-punishment-children/

Wait, whut?

Oh. Yeah, getting back to "believe in anything"- and it doesnt matter what, does it? Just as long as you unquestioningly buy into some brand of bullshit... Yeah, that worked out great for the folks in Guyana, or the comet people who ate the poisoned applesauce and killed themselves in their track suits, didnt it?

Hey, at least they "believed in something"

News flash: it's not the doubters and skeptics and critical thinkers who are running around waging holy wars all the time. It is people who "believe in something"- true belivers, whether that be a true belief in sky wizards, dialectical materialism, or aryan supremacy, they're generally the problem.

How about this- rather than scrambling to find someone's piece of dogma to accept unquestioningly, how about thinking critically for oneself and constantly challenging not only other peoples' answers, but your own?

Honestly, that's what Hunter Thompson would have told you to do.

[7962]

173. The "BS Brigade" is just as much those who rush to deride any who have a belief.

So many have an eagerness to show that THEY are SO much more enlightened & intelligent than those who happen to have a belief in God.

[Rex]

184. Yeah facts and evidence make people cocky.

Who would have guessed?

[7962]

187. yet there is no evidence that a higher power doesnt exist. Enjoy your high horse.

Actually, there mere fact that we dont see life of ANY kind on all types of other planets would seem to be indicative of the earth being unique, for whatever reason. If its because a comet slammed into us and started everything, fine, but comets slam into planets all the time. Seems like we'd see intelligent life all over the place, in SOME form. And quite possibly, its out there, somewhere, but so far nothing.
I'm not forcing any belief on anyone and I certainly dont really care for "organized" religion. But I also dont see myself as being better & smarter than anyone else who has one or has none.
Thats the thing about so many atheists; the smugness of non-belief. Even "holier-than-thou"!

[hifiguy]

219. The rules of debate require those putting the affirmative case

here, for the existence of "god" to bear the burden of proof.

Theists have failed miserably to do so.

[Warren DeMontague]

223. you're joking, here, right?

"we dont see life of ANY kind on all types of other planets" - and how many have we visited, to check, so far?

Do you have any concept of the size of the solar system, much less the galaxy, much less the universe?

"so far nothing". You're like someone who says trees don't exist because you've spent your entire life in your bathroom.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

186. What is "God" and where did it come from? nt

[Rex]

191. Faith means you get to use magic to answer all your questions.

Just a lazy form of thinking imo.

[Warren DeMontague]

222. Irrelevant response.

My point there is "believe in something or you'll fall for anything" is a stunningly craptastic piece of philosophical advice, not to mention ironically self-contradicting (exhorting people willy-nilly to 'believe in something' is strikingly similar to telling them to 'fall for anything', is it not?)

... I don't, actually, give two-tenths of a flying fuck what people choose to believe, as long as they keep it out of the legal system and my kids' science class curriculum. Science and evidence-based reasoning has an excellent track record for understanding the Universe. Religious faith, not so much.

But if people want or need to believe in ill-defined mystical hoo-hah, that's their call. I don't, actually, give a shit.

[7962]

224. No, it should NOT have a place in any science curriculum. Not at all.

ANd i would tell any evangelical the same.

[Rex]

185. Some would rather live at the shallow end of the pool.

While others dive to touch the bottom at the deep end. They want to feel something and see it so they can say it exists. The shallow enders never touch the bottom, they feel safe in knowing they can never drown so they just float on the surface.

[7962]

188. If "seeing and touching" is what it takes for you to believe,

then there is a LOT of stuff you must not believe in!

[Rex]

189. You don't get it.

That is okay, I don't expect you to get the analogy. Go back to your faith, leave the important things to science.

[7962]

213. Oh, I get it. As I said before, enjoy your lofty perch above the rest of us!

If people who believe are wrong, oh well, nothing lost.
I've seen and touched lots of wonderful things! Learned a lot along the way too.
I'm lucky enough to have achieved 3 professional degrees in 3 different fields. None of them required me to deny faith in a higher power.

[Rex]

217. Lofty perch? I see you have no clue at all.

Sure you got degrees...cool story, no really it is.

[7962]

225. So of course you resort to insulting my education. Typical.

Those who insult others simply for having a belief are always very proud of how much better they are.

[saturnsring]

129. lol - u think god is a sky wizard

[7962]

131. Thats the favorite cute term used by the non believing folk

[hobbit709]

137. CORRECTION: IMAGINARY sky wizard.

[ladyVet]

157. Dude (or Dudette), we've only been looking for, what, forty years?

Geez. We're only a few centuries past the Dark Ages, when religion very nearly destroyed science in favor of some book that's been poorly translated, edited to the point of banality and cherry-picked from to suit whoever was in charge at the moment.

For me, I'm placing my bets on the thing that can explain the universe, not the one that wants to attribute it to a two thousand year old mishmash of every prior mythology.

[fasttense]

34. Who made the intelligent creator?

Was that an accident of nature? Everything has a beginning and end. Where did this forever being come from?

So your argument is: since science has yet to create a one celled organism using non living matter than there is a super powerful being who created it all. And not only did he create it all, he (why is it NOT a She. It is a creator after all) did it in several thousand years and all the evidence contrary to that is planted by yet another super being called the devil. Seems like a real big leap of logic to me.

[robersl]

39. Who set off the Big Bang?

If you believe in a creator or not, you are always stuck with the "Where did it all start?" question.

My argument is that life is way too complex to be an accident. If I buy the parts to build a computer, and I accidentally assemble them correctly, it is still an inert object. So then let's say I figure out to plug it in (lightning strikes, a comet hits Earth, whatever), it still has no operating system and is not yet a computer. But once I install an OS it can then compute.

Point being, there is information in the chromosomes of living things, which governs their behavior. It had to have been embedded there by an Intelligence.

To address the tangents you introduced, the Creator has no gender, and I never said anything about thousands of years - the universe is obviously billions of years old.

[fasttense]

53. You are Not a full creationist? So, you are taking the real ID position?

Just checking to see how far down into creationism you go. There are very many people here in the South who claim the ID argument but then quote scripture to prove the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The believers of ID in the south are mostly smarter creationists.

You are stuck on what created the big bang. You are also obviously stuck at the non living matter into a one cell organism stage too. And You don't know how Chromosomes evolved. How is that any kind of proof? Sort like the missing link hypothesis.

The missing link hypothesis is: Since we don't know all the links in the chain of the creation of man or the universe, we claim a God did it. Which is kind of a silly argument because you have yet to provide any evidence of this God. You need to give some evidence based in the real world of this God. How about an experiment that proves it? Take your hypothesis to a logical test or experiment.

There is plenty of evidence in the evolution of life and the universe. True we don't have all the links but the evidence for evolution and natural selection is in numerous, very well written scientific books that provide boundless evidence in the physical world.

Why is life too complex to be natural selection? Many very complex structures have occurred because of the laws of physics interacting with the elements of the universe. Given enough time, many beautiful complex and amazing things evolve. All that's needed is time and matter.

Your best logical argument for a creator (NOT Intelligent Design) Is that once you have found what started the Big Bang, you will have to find out what caused that and then what caused the cause of the big bang and on and on. Nothing in the Universe lasts forever and has always been, so there has to be a beginning. That beginning could be a God but I have no evidence of that.

[robersl]

57. Evidence for God

Neither of us can prove, in terms of modern science, God's existence pro or con. I can't tell you how God came into existence, and you can't tell me why there was a Big Bang.

So what's left is an Occam's razor situation. We know that intelligence is capable of creating organization and order. We know that chaos tends to disintegrate the same.

So why does the accidental development of an extremely complex, organized, balanced universe make more sense than positing an intelligence as the source?

[fasttense]

67. Yes I can prove there is NO God

There is absolutely no physical evidence of the existence of God. There I proved God does NOT exist.

Now your turn give me some evidence he does exist.

Today, I may not be able to tell you how the Big Bang started. But tomorrow, or 20 years from now, I may be able to. And it will have nothing to do with God. Don't you think people said the same thing before the big bang was hypothesized? You can't prove how the earth and stars were created therefore there is a God. You can't prove why the sun rises and sets every day so there must be a God. You don't know why my friend died, so there must be a God. Every time science comes up with a blank does not mean there is a God. It just means there is more research needed.

Occam's razor is NOT evidence. It is merely a problem solving principle which states: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

My assumption is that 1.)eventually science will be able to explain how the big bang got started. 2.) God will have nothing to do with it.

Your assumptions:1.) There is an all powerful being that is 2.)always living outside our space and time and 3.)super intelligent. 4.)This being with all these powers decided to start our universe 5.) with a big bang (You would think a powerful being would find a quicker less gangling way of creating a universe - at least he could have done it with less noise). 6.)Since then he has left no evidence of his existence.

[robersl]

71. Evidence for God

I guess it all depends on how we define evidence. I would cite two things that constitute evidence to me:

1) Life - somehow a complex group of inert chemicals can move around, breathe, reproduce, grow from two cells to adulthood.

2) Self-awareness - you are capable of contemplating yourself, your own existence. You can think about your own thoughts.

These are two points of evidence that seem to point toward a deity as opposed to the idea that this is all just an extremely complex happenstance.

I didn't say Occam's razor was evidence, I just said that it appears to be on my side.

Also, how is saying "eventually science will be able to explain how the big bang got started" any different from some fundamentalist saying "Eventually, Jesus will come back"? I'm glad you have such absolute faith in the scientific method, but if you look over the last 500 or 1000 years, the mystics have told a pretty consistent story, but Science changes its story over and over again.

[Rex]

75. It is not somehow, science can give you the play by play down to what the atoms are doing.

Self awareness is just proof of a higher form of intelligence.

Occam's razor cannot be on anybodies side.

Without science, planes would not fly and you and I would not be talking on the WWW.

Mystics have made up generalized stories over our history, not original in Jesus's time.

Science changes, because we are finding out new things about reality we didn't know before through theory and testing.

Now on your side you have;

Faith.

That is it. No empirical evidence of any kind. So let us see...reality...vs...faith.

Goodluck with that one.

[robersl]

78. I'm not knocking science

and I'm not espousing faith.

I don't mean to be mean, but "Self awareness is just proof of a higher form of intelligence" is kind of a meaningless statement. So then what is intelligence?

I am simply stating that, given the evidence, which is this universe we live in, and given the presence of self-aware life, it was all either created by an intelligent being or not.

So, given the inscrutable nature of awareness and the amazing complexity of life forms, I say the evidence argues that this was created deliberately. Trying to hash out how this could come about by accident is much more elaborate and involved - hence, the Occam's razor says a Creator did it.

[Rex]

82. Not at all hard to hash out. You have billions of years and trillions of objects colliding together

to create life. Just as easy to explain as your example.

[robersl]

83. So

you just wave your hands around, throw out a couple of billions and trillions, and you feel like you have explained how matter became animated and self-aware?

I have no problem with it if you're satisfied with that, but I'm saying, you're not really digging into this issue.

In the same way that religious people have an aversion to factual points that challenge their faith, so do sciency people have a problem facing up to the shortfalls of empirical investigation.

Just saying.....

[Rex]

87. Hands? What are you talking about?

That was just speculation on my part to prove you don't have a valid point anymore than anyone else. I didn't say anything about self aware matter, LOL. Too funny.

[GeorgeGist]

141. But now you're left with the harder problem of explaining where God came from ...

etc, etc, etc ...

[fasttense]

228. Your idea of evidence is really nothing but spin.

You spinning the idea of life and self-awareness into some arbitrary philosophy is NOT proof of a God.

Just because animals and humans have life and self awareness does NOT mean there is a God. It is a leap in logic. It's like saying I have 10 fingers and toes therefore God exists.

Occam's razor does not support your argument. You make way more assumptions than I do.

Because Science has explained so many other things that people claimed God did, I believe science will eventually explain the big bang. They use to believe God made the Sun rise and fall, but then they found out it was gravity and physics. They use to believe people died from disease because they were bad and God made them die. To this day some people believe God gives you money. But then why would God give so many criminals and thieves so much wealth? I have evidence and previous experience, to state that science will expand our knowledge and our understanding of the universe.

I don't get your absolute faith thing. I know science will eventually increase our knowledge of the big bang. But it does NOT mean I pray to science and ask it to gift me with magical healing and wealth. I don't go to a building every week and and proclaim my love of science.

Just because I use rational logical thought (which according to you God gave me to use) to approach the world does NOT mean I've turned science into a religion. The Guy who says Jesus will come back has NO evidence for that. Jesus hasn't come back previously why would he come back in the future? Now if Jesus had been back 4 or 5 times through out history, that would be evidence and he could use it to prove his statement.

Of course science changes, it expands our understanding. If it were static there would be no advance or expansion of our knowledge. A static, never changing science is a failed science.

[hifiguy]

80. One school of cosmological thought

posits that new universes can pop into existence on the "other side" of the singularity at the center of a black hole. That information and matter has to go somewhere.

Another argues for the existence of an eternal quantum foam - which is "nothing" in any non-scientific sense - out of which may emerge the beginnings of universes by way of quantum mechanical processes.

Both are far more plausible than the eternal existence that stands outside of the universe; that is in fact a logical absurdity, as NOTHING can exist outside of a universe, which is defined as a place in spacetime encompassing all that is.

[Rex]

89. Also the mere fact of thousands of religions in the world, compounded with all the unknown

races out there in the void and THEIR religions. Seems almost ludicrous to announce your religion is the correct one. Sounds like vanity X100. Whereas science makes no bold claims and can back up known claims with proof.

Really...there is nothing to argue about here.

[hifiguy]

90. Not for anyone who understands the basis of

logical argument, at any rate.

The mere fact that every culture's (prescience) creation story is different shoud be sort of a BIG SCREAMING CLUE.

[Rex]

94. I agree it should be a clue as big as their mind can wrap around the idea.

Just sticking with this planet alone there are too many religions and what if the right one is now long dead and buried in history?

I never could understand why devout people need to explain anything to me - they have faith. That is magic in a bottle. How can facts, standards and practices compare to the genie in the bottle?

[hifiguy]

97. The problem arises when it can be shown

that there is NO GENIE in the bottle. Much less one that looks like Barbara Eden.

See:

Victor Stenger: God, the Failed Hypothesis
Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing

[Rex]

99. True, it goes deep to the core of their belief system.

And they get mad if you call it magic...which it has to be, what else is it called?

[hifiguy]

101. I always come back to Carl Sagan,

one of my few and enduring personal heroes: "I'd rather know than believe."

And, like Sagan, I don't find not knowing to be a threatening thing. Perfect and all-encompassing knowledge is not possible, even for the greatest genius. But that's no excuse for not remaining curious and continuing to learn what IS.

[Rex]

111. Could not agree more!

Carl Sagan always been a hero of mine too.

[LiberalAndProud]

143. A complex universe must have been designed by a complex intelligence.

From where did the complex intelligence originate? We have constructed a greater complexity to explain complexity. I can't follow your reasoning to your conclusion.

I do know that many people find this argument to be convincing. For me, it explains exactly nothing.

[robersl]

178. Yes, that's how I feel about the Big Bang

What came before it? It explains exactly nothing about origins.

[LiberalAndProud]

214. Except that we can observe evidence of a big bang. Now. Today.

Evidence of an all loving, all knowing, all seeing creator, on the other hand, is notable for its absence.

[immoderate]

38. Emergent behavior.

Study that, and this will all clear up for you.

--imm

[robersl]

40. Smug answer, sloppy thinking

Emergent behavior is a way of describing the relationships between individual parts of a complex system, but does nothing to describe the origins of the parts.

Not really sure why you brought this up.....

[immoderate]

46. Emergent behavior is a way of describing what things do.

It describes the tendency of matter to form itself into more complex systems. It also avoids the contradictions of starting off your universe with a being "that, than which, nothing greater can be conceived."

--imm

[hifiguy]

96. Emergence is fascinating

and IMO one of the waves of the scientific future.

I read Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin's "A Different Universe" a couple of months ago. That was the first real discussion of emergence I had encountered. Lee Smolin seems to suggest this strongly in his recent books as well. It makes the same kind of intuitive sense that so strongly informed Newton's and Einstein's theories.

[immoderate]

109. I started with encounters with Conway's program, referenced in Peter Gleick's book on Chaos.

I have spent hours playing with 'The Game of Life,' and marveled at the 'life forms' that can organize from the simplicity if 'cellular automatons.' A good version is here. There are many others, though.

I also liked Complexity by Mitchell Waldrop.

I would add that Darwin has that same 'intuitive sense' as Newton and Einstein, once it is explained to you.

I will look for Laughlin's book.

--imm

[hifiguy]

112. Agree about Darwin.

Thinking deeply and at length on the simple question "what in nature could logically explain the things I have observed?" Just like Einstein and Newton.

[jeff47]

45. No, one-cell living things have extremely complex cell structures NOW.

Ancient Earth is nothing like today's Earth.

For example, today if you spill some food on the ground, it will decompose. Even if you manage to keep animals, fungi and bacteria from landing on it, it will break down due to the presence of oxygen in our atmosphere.

Ancient Earth had no free oxygen. So complex, yet not living things did not decompose.

Life probably developed from something that resembled a prion. A complex molecule that was able to create copies of itself from the "primordial soup".

Over time, one of those copies happened to be inside a lipid bilayer, allowing it to exert much more control over its local environment. Ta-da! Single-celled organisms.

Over time, those cells stumbled into more complex forms and shapes that allowed for more complex functionality. Which eventually built upon itself to the massively specialized and complex organisms that populate our planet today.

which idea, to my mind, is much less likely than the notion that there is an intelligent creator behind this vast and complex universe.

Extremely unlikely events will occur, given enough time. 2 billion years is a very, very, very, long time.

If you want to support an intelligent creator, you'd have to explain why we are so terribly designed.
For example:
Food and air travel through the same "pipe", allowing us to choke to death.

Our eyes require a complex system to put a layer of water on the surface in order to properly focus light. Why do we need light to pass through water for us to focus it, since we are land animals?

Men have two holes within the structure of their abdomen - testicles develop identically to ovaries until they pass through these holes. That makes men far more vulnerable to hernias.

Then there's the whole co-mingling of our reproductive tracts and sewage systems.

We are extremely poorly designed creatures. Any intelligent designer would not make us this way.

[robersl]

55. So when you say "Ta-da"

is that the part where the prion invents nucleic acids and encodes its own DNA, so that it can proceed with replication as a living organism?

Please remember that ta-da is typically spoken when arriving at the end result of a magic trick. This is what bugs me about the argument of "given enough time, unlikely events will occur". Well, sure, that's true, but impossible events will not.

[jeff47]

60. No, it's an example of how the more complex structures appeared.

is that the part where the prion invents nucleic acids and encodes its own DNA

You are anthropomorphising evolution. That is a big part why you don't understand it.

so that it can proceed with replication as a living organism?

Prions have no DNA. They're generally considered "alive".
There are many viruses that do not have DNA, only RNA.

Most likely, RNA evolved as genetic material first, because it's a simpler molecule. But taking off an oxygen makes for a more stable molecule (hence "deoxy" in deoxyribonucleic acid).

But that doesn't mean you have to have RNA in order to have life.

Well, sure, that's true, but impossible events will not.

Then you'd have to show it's impossible for life to spontaneously appear. So far, all you're claiming is it's improbable.

Also, you skipped over the part where our supposedly intelligent designer did such a terrible job designing us.

[robersl]

65. Anthropomorphizing evolution?

I was being sarcastic. I believe you are anthropomorphizing evolution when you posit a prion in a libid bilayer that jumps to a living organism.

Regarding the bad design of humans, wow. I haven't addressed that because it seems too incredible that you would say that. You are sitting at a computer communicating with me. You are typing, but you can't tell me how. You are formulating thoughts, but you have no clue as to how you do that either.

You don't speak a sentence internally before it comes out of your mouth, you just start talking - yet the right words show up by the end of the sentence. You don't know why.

An outfielder will hear the crack of a bat and see a half second of trajectory, and will proceed to the right spot at the right time to make the catch. You have no clue how that happens either.

By what standards to you judge that you call the human badly designed?

Science minded people have successfully dismissed the medieval concept of God and think they have solved the problem. But science has no real clue as to how life started or how it works.

What is incredible to me is the single-minded determination to dismiss the possibility of an intelligent source for the universe. Why is that so important to do? It doesn't negate anything that science is pursuing. Amazing....

[jeff47]

66. So you don't know what the word "anthropomorphizing" means.

Might wanna look it up.

Regarding the bad design of humans, wow. I haven't addressed that because it seems too incredible that you would say that.

Good thing I gave specific examples for you to address!

You are sitting at a computer communicating with me. You are typing, but you can't tell me how.

Neurons in my brain cause a nerve impulse to travel down my spinal cord and into my fingers. My fingers press on a keyboard, pushing down on a membrane below the keys. This action closes a circuit within the keyboard, which is interpreted by a chip within the keyboard. The key press is translated by another chip in the keyboard into a USB HID message indicating which key has been pressed. That is transmitted over a USB cable to the USB hub within the computer. The USB hub sends a signal to the keyboard driver, indicating that a key has been pressed. The driver sends a message to the operating system indicating a key has been pressed. The operating system sends a message to the active application indicating that a key has been pressed. The application notifies the rendering engine that a letter needs to be drawn at a specific location. The rendering engine passes that request to the operating system, which passes that request to the graphics driver. Which passes that request to the graphics interface hardware, which updates the frame buffer changing white pixels to black pixels in the shape of the appropriate letter.

Then the neurons in my brain start another nerve impulse down my arm and into my finger, causing my finger to rise off the keyboard. That releases the pressure on the membrane under they key, disconnecting a circuit. A chip within the keyboard detects the circuit has been cut, and signals the USB chip that a USB HID key released message needs to be sent to the computer. That key released message is processed by the USB hub within the computer, and sent to the keyboard driver, indicating that the key has been released. The driver sends a message to the operating system indicating the key has been released. The operating system sends a message to the active application, indicating that a key has been released.

After this process repeats many times (once for each letter), neurons in my brain send a nerve impulse down my arm, causing the muscles in my arm to move my hand over to the mouse, and then similar messages cause my arm to move the mouse. Optical recognition chips within the mouse detect that the surface of the desk has slightly moved. This information is relayed to the USB HID chip within the mouse, which transmits a "mouse moved" message to the USB hub within the computer. The USB hub sends a message to the mouse driver, indicating that the mouse has moved. The mouse driver sends a message to the operating system, indicating the mouse has moved. The operating system sends a message to the graphics driver, indicating that a particular arrow shape should be moved to a new position. The graphics driver sends that message to the graphics device, which updates the framebuffer with the new location of the arrow. It now obscures the "Post my reply" button that has been rendered by the active application.

Do you need me to continue with how clicks are handled, and how network stacks work? Or do you get the point yet that you not understanding something does not mean no one understands something?

By what standards to you judge that you call the human badly designed?

I gave very specific examples. Try reading them.

But science has no real clue as to how life started or how it works.

No, you have no real clue. First, science is a methodology. It doesn't "know" anything.

Second scientists do have a very good understanding of how life started, and how life works. That's why your doctor isn't using leeches to treat you.

What is incredible to me is the single-minded determination to dismiss the possibility of an intelligent source for the universe.

Again, you are not everyone. And your caricature of people you disagree with is not an accurate description.

But it's abundantly clear you are not asking your questions out of any desire to discuss anything. You are here only to insult and deride.

[robersl]

68. Hmm

I cited several miracles of the human being to you that science cannot describe or understand.

You retorted with one sentence about a nerve impulse traveling down your spinal cord and 1,000 words about computers and networking. That is quite telling and illustrates my point nicely.

Obviously, introspection is not your thing. Just know, you are not poorly made, and what is going on inside of you is complex almost beyond comprehension.

If you want to go on believing that scientists have a very good understanding of how life started and how it works, go ahead. If anyone you know ever gets cancer or suffers a brain injury, and you talk to a doctor and they have no answers for you, and you wonder why, after a century of research, they are no closer to understanding these things than they were in 1920, perhaps you can look up one of those "Life Understanding" scientists to give your doctors a hand.

Bye Jeff47 - have a nice day.

[jeff47]

69. No, you actually didn't cite any miracles.

Scientists know lots about audio and visual processing. Again, you not understanding something does not mean no one understands something.

As for Hmm....you've still yet to address my examples of our terrible design. Why'd God make human males more likely to get hernias?

[restorefreedom]

49. that is what often hangs me up is the beginning of the beginning of the universe

the "uncaused cause" argument is the one thing that makes me think that some kind of creative force (or forces) is possible.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. The problem is that you have a problem of infinite regress, something had to have caused that...

force(a god, maybe?), but then something would have created the creator of the creator, etc.

Frankly, we don't know what happened at the big bang, hell, even our language breaks down, talking about what happened before the Big Bang is nonsensical, time existed afterwards, not before.

The Big Bang is still ongoing, occurred everywhere within the framework from within the universe and occurred about 13.82 billion years ago. That's what we know, no use in speculating further without evidence.

[restorefreedom]

115. for me it is more an interesting academic discussion

i am not emotionally invested in having to believe. if some kind of overwhelming evidence existed then i would accept it. but then, it would not be faith it would be science. oh well....

[Humanist_Activist]

117. The thing is that the Big Bang is practically the only gap left for the "God of the gaps" to occupy.

We have a rough idea as to how life began even if we don't know the details, yet.

What we do know about cosmology is what we don't know, and that's about 98% of it, but to insert a deity into those unknowns is just playing pretend.

[restorefreedom]

124. true, but the possibility also exists

of a non creative force god or gods which exist within the framework of the big bang. i don't necessarily believe in the parallel track (although i do believe in the spirit world), and for people that need an omnipotent being, it would not suffice.

[NonMetro]

151. Something must have existed before the Big Bang

Otherwise, there wouldn't have been one. And once we conclude the existence of something before that, then there must have been something before that, too, and that and that - forever. Thus, there was no beginning to the universe. It has always existed and it always will exist. No beginning, no end, and infinite.

And we can't see all of it, either.

[ladyVet]

158. Nothing is created or destroyed, only changed. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

160. The Big Bang, from what we can tell, is the literal beginning, there was no "before"...

Time itself didn't exist until the Big Bang.

And infinite universe does not fit the observations of this one, its a speculative fantasy, but that's all it is.

[cpwm17]

208. I believe most scientists won't agree with you, including Neil deGrasse Tyson.

He says that nature doesn't make things in ones, meaning, there is likely more than one universe.

Without a previous existence, the Big Bang would be time = zero. That's impossible. The Big Bang came from a previous existence. The multiverse concept is popular among many scientists. There had to be something, since nothing can't create anything since nothing doesn't exist.

[Humanist_Activist]

209. He argues for a multiverse, not an infinite universe, those are different things...

and the Big Bang was the beginning of time, for this universe. We only have one frame to work off of, so that's the one we use. There could be an infinite number of universes out there, but that doesn't mean that this one existed before the Big Bang.

[cpwm17]

215. Our Universe likely came from the same previous existence

that at least some of the other universes came from, so no universe from nothing.

Existence is likely unimaginably large or infinite. Our Universe could be infinite and there could be infinite universes beyond. There could also be unknown realms beyond that unrelated to our Universe.

That sure is a lot of lottery tickets to create intelligent life, hence we came into being as conscious creatures that attempt to understand our own existence.

[Humanist_Activist]

216. They could have triggered it maybe, but I doubt any information traveled from previous universes...

to this one, at least not that we can detect.

Hell, we are trying to find out if the universe interacts with others at all, it might be detectable, there's even a working hypothesis of what this evidence would look like, which is interesting. Something to do with looking for circular patterns in the MBR. We think our universe might be a sphere, so if others bumped into it, and were also spheres, they would leave circular patterns. Interesting thought.

[cpwm17]

220. Certainly details about the Multiverse are speculative

but it would be exciting if scientists could give scientific evidence. That might never happen.

I'm convinced that there is some form of multiverse because of the Anthropic Principle:
http://www.gotquestions.org/anthropic-principle.html

The Anthropic Principle is the Law of Human Existence. It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values must fall within a very narrow range of values. If even a single variable were off, even slightly, we would not exist. The extreme improbability that so many variables would align so auspiciously in our favor merely by chance has led some scientists and philosophers to propose instead that it was God who providentially engineered the universe to suit our specific needs. This is the Anthropic Principle: that the universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence.

Consider protons, for example. Protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Whether by providence or fortuitous luck (depending on your perspective), protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Was it luck or contrivance?...

The question for us now is, with so many universal constants and cosmological parameters defining our universe, and with so many possible variables for each one, how did they all just happen to fall within the extremely narrow range of values required for our existence? The general consensus is that we are either here by fortuitous luck against tremendous odds or by the purposeful design of an intelligent Agent.

Some proponents of the here-by-chance perspective have sought to level the odds against fortuitous luck by hypothesizing a scenario whereby our universe is just one among many in what has come to be termed a “multiverse.” This gives nature many more chances to “get it right,” bringing the odds against its success down significantly.

With an infinite multiverse, our existence is guaranteed – no god or nearly impossible odds required.

[trotsky]

73. The Argument from Personal Incredulity

http://www.trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

[robersl]

85. Please spare me the condescending babble

There was a time when people discussed the existence of a deity. Today, the conversation is apparently reduced to people on the "no-god" side of the argument congratulating themselves on having ascended to a position of intellectual superiority over anyone who takes the opposite stance.

How many times must I suffer to hear an inert bag of chemicals who has somehow become animated and self-aware declare pompously to me that they know of no evidence of a Deity?

Abraham Lincoln challenged any man to look into the star-filled night sky and tell him there was no Creator. Most of the great minds of human history have believed in a God, but somehow, today, everybody who isn't a fundamentalist Bible-thumper just "knows" the Deity isn't there.

Listen - you are alive, you are self-aware, you exist in a solar system and universe that is carefully balanced to support life. If that is not proof of God, it is as least evidence that a creator is responsible.

[hobbit709]

86. Did you look in a mirror when you said that?

[trotsky]

91. LOL no doubt...

"How many times must I suffer to hear an inert bag of chemicals..."

Nope, nothing condescending there at all!

[robersl]

95. Good one

your perceive sarcasm

[trotsky]

88. Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

And what it does to your position when you engage in one while attempting to have a serious discussion?

...you exist in a solar system and universe that is carefully balanced to support life

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'" - Douglas Adams

[robersl]

93. If

the earth were of much greater or lesser mass, the force of gravity would be such that it would be difficult for life to survive. If the earth were at a different distance from the sun, it would be either too hot or too cold for life to survive. Our atmosphere is just the right kind of filter to let in the good rays and keep out the bad.

If there is a logical fallacy in that, point it out. When you have figured out how the random bundle of neurons inside your cranium developed self-reflective awareness, let me know about that too.

[trotsky]

98. Let me help you.

Take what you wrote, and for every instance of the word "life," substitute it with the phrase "life as I personally understand it."

Then re-read your paragraph back to yourself and see if you grasp what several people are pointing out to you.

[robersl]

107. Really?

You call me out for a logical fallacy, I defend my logic and ask where you see a fallacy, and all you come back with is a silly word game?

Weak. I'll discuss/argue a point but if you can't follow the thread I think I have other things to do - sorry.

[trotsky]

113. It is unfortunate you are unable to see your error.

I can understand why you'd rather run away.

[opiate69]

100. Can you expound on this please?

If the earth were at a different distance from the sun, it would be either too hot or too cold for life to survive.

Thanks in advance.

[robersl]

105. Mars and Venus

one is too hot for life, the other, too cold.

[opiate69]

108. Well...

In reality, Venus and Mars are both considered by astrophysicists to orbit within the circumstellar habitable zone. Their apparent lifelessness has far more to do with geologic and atmospheric conditions than their respective distances from sol.

[Humanist_Activist]

114. You seem to forget that life on Earth is fine tuned for conditions on Earth, not the other way...

around, due to evolution. Yes life on Earth would have difficulty surviving on planets with different environmental conditions, because they evolved on Earth.

But life on other planets, that evolved there? It really depends, as far as we know, from life on Earth, it is very robust(examples extremophiles). Apparently the bare minimum to have life is liquid water, a source of energy, and enough variety in elements to allow complex organic chemistry.

This would allow for unicellular and simplistic multicellular life, no problem. What may be required for sapience and civilization would most likely be a planet with a stable atmosphere that's thick enough to protect from most solar and cosmic radiation, a magnetosphere, and stability in orbits that are roughly in the Goldilocks zone to allow liquid water on the surface. Such a planet could be outright hostile to life on Earth, and yet be "finely tuned" for life evolved on it.

Also a note, the neurons in your brain aren't random, that evolved into sapience because it gave human beings as a species a competitive advantage in surviving over other predators and prey.

[robersl]

179. The "Finely-Tuned Universe" argument has been ongoing for a century now

"If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e., if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang."

[trotsky]

180. The most important word in that uncredited excerpt:

"presumably"

Do you know why that word is so important to your argument?

[robersl]

192. Hey, don't take it so hard

If you didn't come on like you've got all the answers, it wouldn't be so embarrassing when you get bested in something like this.

Just saying.....

[ChisolmTrailDem]

193. LOL!!! YOU are the one who thinks you have all the answers! nt

[trotsky]

194. LOL

I understand why you are afraid to answer that question, and instead choose to respond with a pitiful personal attack. That appears to be all you have left.

[robersl]

198. Let me help you

Go through this thread, and for every instance of a question I asked you, substitute the words "I understand why I am afraid to answer that question."

Then re-read your post back to yourself and see if you grasp what I am pointing out to you.

[trotsky]

199. So you're telling me to take every question you've asked,

and replace it with a statement that makes reference to question that no longer exists? What a strange request.

[robersl]

200. Study on it

It'll come to you

[trotsky]

201. Probably not - I mean, I'm really dumb, according to you. Super dumb.

But before you go, I was wondering if you'd be willing to answer just one question for me.

Do you think that life on Earth is the only possible kind of life that can exist?

[robersl]

203. I do not recall calling you dumb, and

No I don't believe that life on earth is the only possible kind of life.

[trotsky]

204. Well then, with that admission you just sabotaged your entire argument.

It was predicated upon the notion that the unique conditions on Earth are what made life possible. But if life could develop under completely different circumstances, it could be quite widespread in the universe.

Let's go back to your paragraph:

If the earth were of much greater or lesser mass, the force of gravity would be such that it would be difficult for life to survive. If the earth were at a different distance from the sun, it would be either too hot or too cold for life to survive. Our atmosphere is just the right kind of filter to let in the good rays and keep out the bad.

Because of your admission that life could be vastly different than what we have on Earth, that entire paragraph is voided. Other life could arise under different levels of gravity. Different forms of life might thrive at high temperatures, or low ones. Heck, we've got bacteria on earth that live in boiling hot springs, and under a mile of ice in Antarctica. And who is to say there isn't life that could thrive under a different atmosphere? Life vastly different than what we know, but then again, life on Earth evolved to thrive on what you call the "good rays." Perhaps life on another planet in another star system has evolved to thrive on x-rays. Perhaps there's an intelligent being on that planet trying to argue with another being by claiming how preposterous it would be to imagine life could develop somewhere that x-rays didn't make it to the surface.

[Humanist_Activist]

207. Even if that assertion is true as you excerpted it(uncredited I might add), I don't...

see how that is an argument, we only have a data point of 1 universe, there is no need to assume a creator was involved unless there is some compelling or overwhelming evidence of such a creator.

As far as we know, this 1 universe could be part of a multiverse and is one of the few universes, that has conditions and fundamental forces at the right strength to allow life to develop and evolve. But that is pure speculation on my part, and at least I'll admit that much instead of pretending I know a multiverse exists.

[muriel_volestrangler]

172. There are millions of planets in this galaxy; many are at the right distance from their sun

for liquid water. That's the basic necessity for 'life as we know it'. You need the planet to be massive enough for the water to stay on it, but life itself, if it's floating in the water (as we, for instance, developed) doesn't really need a particular force of gravity. You don't have to depend on an atmosphere to filter rays - water can do that too, as can rocks.

Out of all the millions (probably billions) of planets (we've found over a thousand, just with one telescope looking at one patch of sky) in this galaxy, some are going to have suitable conditions for our kind of life. Earth was one. And there are billions of galaxies, too.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

116. Galactic jizz. nt

[gcomeau]

123. To get the general principles...

...try this, it's a good intro to the concepts involved. It's a little dated but it still holds up decently for what it is.

(All the whacking the shit out of creationist arguments is just a nice little bonus)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

175. And an article on more recent thinking about the origins of cells, and the use of energy:

The origin of ion-pumping proteins could explain how life began in, and escaped from, undersea thermal vents.

...
Lane and Martin argue that hydrogen-saturated alkaline water meeting acidic oceanic water at underwater vents would produce a natural proton gradient across thin mineral 'walls' in rocks that are rich in catalytic iron–sulphur minerals. This set-up could create the right conditions for converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen into organic carbon-containing molecules, which can then react with each other to form the building blocks of life such as nucleotides and amino acids.

The rocks of deep-sea thermal vents contain labyrinths of these tiny thin-walled pores, which could have acted as 'proto-cells', both producing a proton gradient and concentrating the simple organic molecules formed, thus enabling them eventually to generate complex proteins and the nucleic acid RNA. These proto-cells were the first life-forms, claim Lane and Martin.

It is assumed that the rocky proto-cells would initially be lined with leaky organic membranes. If the cells were to escape the vents and become free-living in the ocean, these membranes would have to be sealed. But sealing the membrane would cut off natural proton gradients, because although an ATP synthase would let protons into the cell, there would be nothing to pump them out, and the concentration of protons on each side of the membrane would rapidly equalize. Without an ion gradient “they would lose power,” says Lane.
...
Lane and Martin think that proto-cells escaped this dilemma because they evolved a sodium-proton antiporter — a simple protein that uses the influx of protons to pump sodium ions out of the cell. As the proto-cell membranes started closing up, they became impermeable to the large sodium ions before the smaller protons. This would have provided advantages to cells that evolved a sodium-pumping protein, while they could still rely on the vents’ natural proton gradients to generate energy. The antiporters created sodium gradients as well, and when the membrane closed up completely, the cells could run on the sodium gradient, and be free to leave the vent.

http://www.nature.com/news/how-life-emerged-from-deep-sea-rocks-1.12109

[trotsky]

196. What an interesting article. Thanks! n/t

[Rex]

139. Do you understand the depth of billions of years?

I don't think you grasp the basics to understand why random chance and time create all kinds of things. All you will ever understand is sciency stuff. How do you explain the Sun without the building blocks to create it? If you are ignorant of the building blocks of biology, then there is no help for you.

Goodluck with the sciency stuff. Sounds like you need to learn a lot before you can ask some serious questions.

[quaker bill]

227. most everyone agrees that it was very improbable

But then consider a planet covered in a sea of primordial goo, the basic ingredients we have created in a lab and have observed in comets and other larger bodies in space. This sea then bakes for millions of years in a large variety of circumstances with various temperatures, micro climates, chemical environments, and energy inputs. This equates to a very large number of "attempts".

A very improbable thing, if "attempted" countless quadrillions of times over millions of years becomes likely to happen once, if not several times. It only had to happen once. In fact since life is very consistent in chemical mechanism, it is quite possible that only once did it survive to reproduce sufficiently to become stable.

[mountain grammy]

36. Humans at the top of the food chain?

sure doesn't sound like intelligent design to me.

[Octafish]

41. Tao vs Zen

"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." -- Niels Bohr

[kwolf68]

50. Intelligent Design is hokem

pure unadulterated non-sense

[Stellar]

51. Loved Neil on with Bill Moyer speaking about Religion, Science and the Universe.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science, Religion and the Universe

Video: http://billmoyers.com/episode/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-science-religion-and-the-universe/

[valerief]

52. That was a great segment. nt

[hunter]

58. There's fallacy in Tyson's argument too.

He assumes at least one human vanitiy: That humans are intelligent.

I measure humanity by our art, essentially our stories. Science is an art too.

Is it a good story you live by or a bad story? I reject the Fundamentalist "bad" stories of any god's "chosen people;" of violence, of threats of violence or "eternal damnation." I despise ignorance. Innumeracy and incuriousity are a plague among humanity.

All stories are metaphors, they have to be, even science. The universe is very big, the human mind is very, very small.

Science is my favorite art, one I'm well trained in. But it can't "explain" most things. We humans simply settle into the metaphors we are comfortable with. In science those somewhat validated by the "scientific method" and various sorts of evidence. In other arts there are many traditions, "schools" of dancing, music, painting, sculpture, language, architecture, etc.

I'm especially interested in evolutionary biology. The evidence for it is wonderful and overwhelming. Anyone who can't find joy in those explorations, or in the explorations of the astronomers, or physicists, or chemists... they live in a very small, dark world.

The religious Fundamentalist hate the more expansive arts and sciences and philosophies; they strive to make their own various brands of hell everyone's reality.

The only good argument in my mind against Creationism or Intelligent Design is that it's mean, small, and ignorant.

[BlueStater]

70. We have separate forums on this site devoted to discussing religion.

This doesn't really belong here.

[valerief]

103. The segment is more about how religion affects politics and our

ability to affect climate change. If religion didn't alter our politics, Larry wouldn't even be discussing it.

[hifiguy]

84. Listening to Tyson, Dawkins, or Lawrence Krauss

completely destroy these idiots is just too much fun. Bambi vs. Godzilla.

[randys1]

102. Commie

[tabasco]

104. Religion exists only because humans are afraid of death

Religion exploits that fear to the max, promising a wonderful lala land where we go after death, if you OBEY that particular religion's rules.

[KittyWampus]

122. The philosophical fail is so strong, it's depressing.

Without Organization, reality itself would not exist.

Without Information, Communication, Response, reality itself would not exist.

All those concepts are linked to Intelligence.

The problem with so many, is they project their own finite concept of personal Intelligence onto the Universe.

[saturnsring]

127. you have to assume that god wants you to live forever

plus there's death in general we dont need to invoke any other tragedy- you grow old and dieif these other things don't get u first

[n2doc]

133. I have yet to hear a single evidence-based argument for the existence of God

Excepting, of course, the FSM, for which we have many photographs…..

[robersl]

145. How About This

Based on empirical observation, the very foundation of science, we know that inert matter can only have conscious awareness bestowed upon it by some other agent that is already in possession of such consciousness. I.E., conscious awareness cannot be whipped up in a test tube, it needs to be passed on from somewhere that it already exists.

Human and animal life can have conscious awareness passed onto it from parents, but, because we are good scientists, we will not violate the law of nature that we have established by our observations. Therefore, we are forced to concede that conscious awareness must have existed before there were humans or animals.

Bingo - proof that God exists!

[tkmorris]

149. Descartes would be proud of that

But you are still wrong. This: "Based on empirical observation, the very foundation of science, we know that inert matter can only have conscious awareness bestowed upon it by some other agent that is already in possession of such consciousness", is completely wrong.

Furthermore, even if that argument made sense (which it doesn't), you simply kick the can down the road. If conscious awareness can only be passed along from prior conscious awareness, from where did it originate in the first place? Where did "God", for want of a better term, get HIS conscious awareness? What was the first conscious being and how did they achieve that?

[robersl]

176. Thank you

Now, regarding your assertion that my statement "is completely wrong" - you cannot counter my statements with a simple assertion on your part that it is wrong without justifying that statement. Please refer to Monty Python's Argument routine for further details:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Monty+Python+argument&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

As far as kicking the can down the road on the origins of consciousness, point taken. However, proponents of Big Bang are in exactly the same boat - all I need say is "What came before the Big Bang?" and we're right back to square one. I view this as a futile exercise and prefer to address my energies toward examining the available evidence, i.e., the existent universe.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

195. Touché! Foiled by his own argument! LOL! nt

[MisterP]

148. let's make this weird!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

[IronLionZion]

134. An intelligent designer does not have to be benevolent

and could have easily had enough of the dinosaurs and decided to put them out of their misery old yeller style. The same could be the case with people.

this is a classic question that I often ask religious folks. Why do bad things happen to good people? And the response is usually the lord works in mysterious ways or has a plan or wants to test their faith or something like that.

People of faith don't need evidence of anything and wouldn't care if there's none. most faiths came about to help explain the unexplainable.

[hunter]

147. Adventures of God...

Creation of the Dinosuars:

http://itsthetie.com/comic/adventures-of-god-2-2

The lord works in mysterious ways:

http://itsthetie.com/comic/adventures-of-god

[robersl]

174. Please, enough with the bearded old man/God digs

Nobody here believes that - this is not about fundamentalist Christianity, it's about whether or not the universe was created by an intelligent being or is a random accident.

[hunter]

190. Do you think it matters what God looks like?

This representation is merely a cartoon shortcut expressing some of the pitfalls of this sort of Creationist or Intelligent Design theory, or a God actively involved involved in human affairs.

The same sort of cartoon might be done with talking galaxies, as in the beginning of It's a Wonderful Life.

Would that depiction bother you any less?

My own mental image of the universe and my own religion are unconventional. I'm a scientist especially interested in evolutionary biology. I don't have many problems with big numbers. A universe with just under 14 billion years of visibility doesn't bother me a whole lot, even if it makes me, myself, very, very small. Furthermore, I'm certain time does not exist as we comprehend it. Time is merely a useful calculating shortcut that our sort of biology stumbled upon while surfing the great wave front. Time is not an accurate representation of what the actual universe *IS* and this becomes painfully obvious at the scales of quantum physics. I'm fairly certain time travel in the Dr.Who sense is impossible, that faster-than-light-travel in the Star Trek sense is impossible, and that neither the "future" nor the "past" are anything more than some probabilities radiating out from any local present.

Wherever you go, there you are.

The religious heritage of my family is of Catholic heresy and pacifism, which is largely how my ancestors ended up in America. I had a very intense religious upbringing in various flavors of Christianity, in the intellectual Catholic tradition, or in intellectual rebuttals to that tradition, but unlike my mom I've never gotten myself kicked out of churches fighting with religious "authorities."

The community I live in is largely Catholic and liberal. We raised our children Catholic, but this was largely without friction here. In conservative communities, where the Priests and Bishops are often as enlightening as a bag of hammers, I probably wouldn't be welcome at Mass.

My mom wanted to be a nun until she met a leering, smoking, drinking, not-so-smart priest. Then she met my dad, they had many children Catholic style, she as a Jehovah's Witness. (That church celebrated having a mess of kids too.) But my mom couldn't stay out of politics, both inside the Kingdom Hall, and outside in the secular world, so we were literally excluded, bouncers at the doors style. Then we were Quakers. My mom could speak out as she pleased, other Friends would nod their heads respectfully, and life would go on.

I grew up as a weird kid who sat out the flag salute in school and knew the Bible.

I don't have any trouble at all "flying without a net" as Warpy describes above.

[robersl]

197. No, it doesn't matter

I was reacting to a caricature. I basically reject religion as we know it, but I do believe in a creative intelligence that originated this universe.

I get a lot of automatic assumptions from people that I am some sort of fundamentalist Christian, as if there were no middle ground between Atheist and Fundamentalist.

Forgive me if I overreacted to the cartoon.

[LiberalElite]

135. Not necessarily - the True Believers have an answer for all this -

hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, disease, pestilance - that's God punishing us.

P.S. I read recently somewhere that, there won't have a cure for AIDS till we "behave."

[retrowire]

138. It is my belief that there IS a creator.

Whether or not that creator loves, or thinks of us at all, is hard to confirm.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

140. The man's got a point....

[blackspade]

144. Boom! Mic drop,

[OxQQme]

150. Since we are discussing WOO

How about Zechariah Sitchin's findings from the wayback ---> http://www.mars-earth.com/sitchintext.htm

In his first book he describes, based on 'his' readings of the ancient tablets uncovered by archaeologists over the recently passed centuries, that this planet that we exist upon had been struck by a moon of a passing populated planet several billion years ago.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46857919/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/moons-makeup-may-be-more-earths-thought/

And tablets that described that this planet is the seventh rock 'in' from 'out there. Visually depicted in clay.

And that Innana was the head honcho amongst her homeys (Annanuki/Nephilim) and a matriarchal led society was extant for an "age" (measured in planetary pole wobble). How could those early post-flood humans KNOW of this?

And the 'gods and goddesses' made physical appearances every few human generations. Hence all the temples.

And why there were two Bronze Ages.

And delineating the planet using sexidecimal geometry. (circle measurement)

And all of earth's most holy sites being placed right on the 30th parallel.

And the creation of adamu.

All lost due to "religion' believing in one God.
Which, historically, is a recent belief.

I believe we have been fostered by a higher intelligence.
Star dust.

The anthropologist E. T. Hall, in “Beyond Culture,” put it this way: Everything man is and does is modified by learning and is therefore malleable. But once learned, these behavior patterns, these habitual responses, these ways of interacting gradually sink below the surface of the mind and, like the admiral of a submerged submarine fleet, control from the depths. The hidden controls are usually experienced as though they were innate simply because they are not only ubiquitous but habitual as well.”

[BlueJazz]

153. I don't believe we're important enough to have a creator. Humans are fairly close to being nothing.

The particles in this reality don't even care about caring.
We care and I suppose that's important to us and to others.

As far as a god thing...maybe the real players are playing with us. I'd like that.

[Initech]

155. I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson!

[King_Klonopin]

161. Atheists can be pretty quick to congratulate themselves on debate points ...

So, if I am intelligent, I am supposed to agree with his premise that asteroids and tornadoes
are absolute proof that God doesn't exist ??!!

Those things are evidence that there is chaos and entropy in the universe (terms he knows too well).
They fail to disprove God's existence any more than a flat tire or a head cold disprove God's existence.

Professor D. (astrophysics) paraphrases the tired old hack of an argument -- if God existed, there
would be perfect order and a complete absence of suffering in the natural universe.

If you ever studied chemistry, biochemistry and physiology and took a look at the macro and micro
precision of how this all works in concert, how can you conclude it is merely by random happenstance ?

Pardon me, if I fail to swoon. Thomas Aquinas made more convincing arguments than these.

[cpwm17]

205. We know that what one observes in chemistry, biochemistry and physiology

exists, so obviously what we observe is possible. It's self-contradictory to claim what we know is real is too complex to be possible, and then claim that an undefined something much more complex must have made it.

We have zero evidence for any god and no precise definition for what this god is or what it does.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against specific claim about a god. You can claim that your definition for a god is different than what Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against. That doesn't invalidate Neil deGrasse Tyson argument.

You do seem to be using an intelligent design argument so Neil deGrasse Tyson still seems to apply.

Our Universe may be infinite and there is very likely much more beyond. In our Universe there are trillions of planets in the visible Universe. That's a lot of lottery tickets to produce a planet that can evolve intelligent life. Likely there are enumerable universes and perhaps other realms unknowable to us beyond our Universe. A lot is going to happen in such a large reality, obviously including life.

[hifiguy]

218. Nicely put.

And (theoretical physicist) Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" explains precisely why there is something instead of nothing, as does Lawrence Krauss' excellent "A Universe From Nothing."

But that is all silly old science....

[Humanist_Activist]

211. Actually those only disprove a benevolent god, however, the fact is that...

he never said absolute proof, he said the evidence doesn't support the existence of such a god, there is a major difference there.

[eridani]

164. They should actually call it Stupid Design

It is based on the presumption that there is an entity smart enough to write the operating rules for the universe, but simultaneously too stupid to get the job done right the first time.

Scientists who are theistic don't go for that. Either the operating system of the universe had an author, or it didn't. Either way, those rules are what they are, and it is the business of scientists to discover them.

[Shankapotomus]

166. To exist is to exist somewhere

Hence, for any god to exist they must have been preceded by a Universe in which to exist.

[cpwm17]

230. That's a good point. n/t

[Kaleva]

231. Many of the main characters in the New Testament died miserable deaths

John the Baptist was beheaded. Jesus was crucified. Several disciples were stoned to death, crucified or beheaded. There is nothing in the New Testament that provides evidence that one will live a long and peaceful life if one believes in God.