A new religion, IF THERE WAS A GOD:

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?"

Because it wouldn't be reality based and no one would follow it. 😵[/b]

That would be because the originators of the Abram religions needed a god that could be identified by humans so they invented said god with human attributes.

It's too bad the billions of duped around the world can't think that one through for themselves. Instead they continue to let other humans tell them what a god is like.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There is one hitch in your theory: Oxygen wasn't needed for the first kind of life on Earth, they were anaerobic, used hydrogen or maybe sulphur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism

So the fact that oxygen is rare isn't a deal breaker for life on other planets.

Besides, there is strong evidence for liquid oceans on at least two moons in ...[text shortened]... d world that way. I know that is pure speculation on my part, just pointing out the possibility.

I acknowledged in the same post you quoted that I was wrong about oxygen being needed.

Regarding liquid oceans of water outside of earth, that would be awesome if the evidence for them actually gets proven one day. I wouldn't be surprised if it happens soon.

Originally posted by vivify
Prove it. Actually post some sort of evidence for a change.

I pointed you to Wikipedia and NASA. Read up on it if you wish. It is somewhat irrelevant to my points, so I won't bother with finding you quotes.

Zero planets and only one moon outside of earth makes it pretty rare.
Well 'pretty' is not very specific is it. What it makes it, is 1 out of 8. Call that 'pretty rare' if you like, but it remains, 1 out of 8. Now given that there are over 100 billion planets in a galaxy, and over 100 billion galaxies, 1 out of 8 leaves us with about 1000 billion billion planets. I decided to cut you some slack and cut it down by a factor of a thousand which is why I went with the billion billion figure.

Maybe you're right. I should've said "baseless assertion".
Except it isn't a 'baseless assertion I am making whereas yours is.

I've supported what I've said with evidence.
No, you have not. You have claimed that liquid water and suitable temperatures are rare. That is not disputed on the understanding that 'rare' means 1 out of 8 known planets. You have given no reasons whatsoever to think that liquid water and suitable temperatures are not common in the universe.

How about showing what about those planets shows life may exist? Simply bringing them up doesn't do it.
They are there. They meet your requirements (liquid water and temperature). The only investigated example of a planet that has liquid water and the right temperature, has life. Therefore, using your earlier technique of extrapolating from an example of 1, you should conclude that they all have life.
I on the other hand, am not claiming that they do have life, only that with a billion billion planets out there, of which you have looked at 8, it seems somewhat premature of you to claim that life is 'rare in the universe'. But I now realise that by 'rare' you might have meant only 100 billion billion of the 1000 billion billion planets have life. Thats the problem with a somewhat vague word like 'rare'.

What false claims were made? Oxygen is rare, and so is liquid water. That's not false.
Well I find the term 'rare' to be somewhat suspect when used to include a billion billion. But I concede that you can stretch the definition to make your statements true.

And you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that a deity wouldn't be interested in human life. Seems that not only do you not plan to, but that you are unable to.
I do not plan to, because I made no such argument. What I said, was that it is somewhat egotistical to think that it would, and I supported that claim quite well. To reiterate, there are so many other things that might take its interest, and we are such an insignificant piece of the universe, and we have no way of knowing what sorts of things it is interested in. To assume it will be interested in humans is simply not justified.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That would be because the originators of the Abram religions needed a god that could be identified by humans so they invented said god with human attributes.

It's too bad the billions of duped around the world can't think that one through for themselves. Instead they continue to let other humans tell them what a god is like.

Why don't you start your cult religion among your buddies that believe in the fairy tale of evolution over billions of years? They might be stupid enough to bellieve you have an idea of what a real god is like.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why don't you start your cult religion among your buddies that believe in the fairy tale of evolution over billions of years? They might be stupid enough to bellieve you have an idea of what a real god is like.

Did I mention evolution in my thread here? You seem to want to put anti-evolution in every word that comes out of your mouth, so you think you have deftly avoided the issue and show how smart you are to deflect things away and maybe we won't notice.

My point is your so-called god is totally man made and you and billions of others are duped into believing all those fairy tales like your repaved creation story as if that was real.

All I am saying is a real god would be so far above human attributes that such statements as 'I am a jealous god' or I am going to bring about a world wide flood, you humans have ticked me off so much that to show my anger I am also dooming about a trillion land animals to death. TAKE THAT, HUMANS. What do you think of THAT, eh?

I am condemning the entire land animal and human population to severe genetic stress by the loss of genetic diversity and I am doing that only because of you humans who REALLY ticked me off.

You think Noah and his bunch would have been saved by all that? All that would really have happened is a severe reduction in genetic diversity that would severely effect every future generation of human and ALL animal life on the planet.

I bet you never thought THAT one through did you? And if you notice, those are MY OWN WORDS, not some assswipe creationist video you put up because you lack the mental resources to use your own words, only putting up more creationist video's or more bible verses because of your lack of the ability to think for yourself.

I think for myself and use my own words, I don't have to rely on stupid third hand video's.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Did I mention evolution in my thread here? You seem to want to put anti-evolution in every word that comes out of your mouth, so you think you have deftly avoided the issue and show how smart you are to deflect things away and maybe we won't notice.

My point is your so-called god is totally man made and you and billions of others are duped into believing ...[text shortened]... .

I think for myself and use my own words, I don't have to rely on stupid third hand video's.

You atheists used to request references for my statements. Now, you just want my own words and claim I can not think for myself. I guess my video references are just too good and that makes you get pissed off.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You atheists used to request references for my statements. Now, you just want my own words and claim I can not think for myself. I guess my video references are just too good and that makes you get pissed off.

Wow, TWO whole sentences of your own. I notice you say nothing to actually refute my statements in those 2 sentences which is a pretty good indication of your ability to think your own thoughts

You do realize what I wrote were my own words didn't you? I didn't reference some science site, I told you my own thoughts but of course in your mind ANYTHING I say is just put down as atheist bullshyte.

And you don't even know enough about what I have written to use the phrase "YOU atheists", where I have several times said I am not an atheist, but I am anti bible god, which isn't the same thing as saying there are no gods.

But you don't have enough mental discrimination ability to see beyond your nose so I am not surprised at all.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, TWO whole sentences of your own. I notice you say nothing to actually refute my statements in those 2 sentences which is a pretty good indication of your ability to think your own thoughts

You do realize what I wrote were my own words didn't you? I didn't reference some science site, I told you my own thoughts but of course in your mind ANYTHING I ...[text shortened]... have enough mental discrimination ability to see beyond your nose so I am not surprised at all.

I know that you claim not to be an atheist by making up a god for yourself; however, if you act like an atheist and talk like an atheist, the logical conclusion is that you are a lying atheist.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know that you claim not to be an atheist by making up a god for yourself; however, if you act like an atheist and talk like an atheist, the logical conclusion is that you are a lying atheist.

Wow, such a refutation. Instead of trying to refute the issues I brought up, now I am not only an atheist but a LYING atheist.

Desperate shot on your part since you clearly HAVE no refutation for my charges.

Did you actually read what I said a few posts ago about the flood?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Wow, such a refutation. Instead of trying to refute the issues I brought up, now I am not only an atheist but a LYING atheist.

Desperate shot on your part since you clearly HAVE no refutation for my charges.

Did you actually read what I said a few posts ago about the flood?

I have given much evidence of the worldwide flood so what else do you expect me to do? It is clear that there must have been a worldwide flood because marine fossils have been found on all the mountains.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have given much evidence of the worldwide flood so what else do you expect me to do? It is clear that there must have been a worldwide flood because marine fossils have been found on all the mountains.

Ok, at last you said something that was your own mind talking. The only problem with that theory is you insist the whole thing has to be 6000 years old but the real answer is those marine fossils you speak of come from literally hundreds of millions of years and if you notice, a lot of those rocks in the mountains are vertically oriented and that is solid rock. You don't bend rock like that in 6000 years or even 6 million years. They get bent being way underground and heated up to plastic point of that rock then slammed against another moving continent then thrust back up and those marine fossils found there are from ancient seas hundreds of millions of years old where back then the fossils died and buried themselves in layer upon layer upon layer built up over millions of years, you can't get that thick a layer in 6000 years, flood or no flood because they were buried many miles deep at one time in the life of those fossils and rocks containing them.

So now comes, what, another creationist BS video? Verses from the bible?

Or just 'those millions of years are lies, there was no millions of years, only an idiot atheist would think that'.

Originally posted by vivify
Prove it. Actually post some sort of evidence for a change.

But not all that rare. 1 out of 8 planets isn't bad. And we haven't really surveyed all the moons, but we know at least one has water.

Zero planets and only one moon outside of earth makes it pretty rare. If you count dwarf planets, that makes it even more rare.

[quote]
...[text shortened]... e interested in human life. Seems that not only do you not plan to, but that you are unable to.

vivify, lets suppose that given a dirty great big galaxy, with billions of stars in it, the probability of finding some sort of goldilocks zone somewhere in a galaxy is 0.000000001Reveal Hidden Content. That's pretty damned improbable I hope you'll agree.

But the thing is, with tens of (maybe hundreds of) billions of galaxies lying around you need to fail to find a goldilocks zone in each and every one of them to say there isn't life elsewhere in the universe. So if we denote the probability you fail once by 1-p, and assuming the that the event a goldilocks zone lies in some galaxy G is independent of the event that some goldilocks zone lies in another galaxy G', then the probability of failing to find a goldilocks zone in two galaxies is (1-p)^2; and in general, if we are looking at n galaxies then the probability of failing to find a goldilocks zone in all n of them happens to be (1-p)^n.

Now with that in mind, how many galaxies do we have to exhaust before we have a fifty-fifty chance of finding somewhere else with a nice little goldilocks zone?

We need to solve (1-p)^n = (1-10^{-9})^n < 1/2, which if you're handy with logarithms comes out at n < 693147180 < 1 billion.

This means that even with a ridiculously low probability of finding some goldilocks zone in a given galaxy (and I'm sure I grossly exaggerate the probability in such way it is unfavourable to myself) we only need little over 2 thirds of a billion galaxies before its a 50-50 bet either way. If we suppose there are about 100 billion galaxies then we have that the probability of not finding somewhere with a goldilocks zone like ours comes out at around

p' = 3.72*10^-44
= 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000372

which I hope you'll agree is pretty bloody unlikely indeed!

The upshot of this reasoning is that it is almost certain that there will be $h!tloads of places out there in the universe that are capable of supporting life like our planet does 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
vivify, lets suppose that given a dirty great big galaxy, with billions of stars in it, the probability of finding some sort of goldilocks zone somewhere in a galaxy is 0.000000001[hidden]= 1-10^{-9}[/hidden]. That's pretty damned improbable I hope you'll agree.

But the thing is, with tens of (maybe hundreds of) billions of galaxies lying around you need to ...[text shortened]... of places out there in the universe that are capable of supporting life like our planet does 🙂

I think the chances are a lot more likely we will find life right here in our own solar system. If so, the odds go up quite a bit for a whole galaxy, eh.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think the chances are a lot more likely we will find life right here in our own solar system. If so, the odds go up quite a bit for a whole galaxy, eh.

Absolutely! I'm pretty certain that I undershot the real probability way way way in vivify's favour in my last post! Indeed I'd be confident to say that in all practical terms it is nigh impossible that there will not be life somewhere else out there in that big old universe we dwell in.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Ok, at last you said something that was your own mind talking. The only problem with that theory is you insist the whole thing has to be 6000 years old but the real answer is those marine fossils you speak of come from literally hundreds of millions of years and if you notice, a lot of those rocks in the mountains are vertically oriented and that is solid r ...[text shortened]... ions of years are lies, there was no millions of years, only an idiot atheist would think that'.

There are ways that bend rocks can appear after the flood, so there is no need for hundreds of millions of years for marine fossils to appear on mountains when a worldwide flood could account for it easily.