05 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieIf the universe was created than what in it wasn't created or owed its being to creation?
you can keep repeating the same old stuff, but the fact still remains...you believe that something complex exists that required no design, while also holding the contradictory view that complexity requires design.
05 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayJust creating the universe does not automatically mean life is created. It could just as well have been, yes, a god created the universe, we think now 14 billion years ago.
If the universe was created than what in it wasn't created or owed its being to creation?
That said, it does not follow we automatically were created ATT which we now know DIDN"T happen at all, we didn't come, we being the solar system, all the planets and moons including Earth, didn't happen for ten billion years after the creation of the universe.
We can tell how old the universe is, in spite of your objections, which are based on the bible, but the bible is wrong about EVERYTHING.
Which doesn't mean the universe was not created by a god.
It may just as well be the universe was created by a god, then it left and went on vacation to parts unknown and it checks up on it every few billion years. One such checkup may have happened about 6 billion years ago when we find the expansion of the universe heated up and we are expanding faster than we were before that, "we'' being the universe.
Which still leaves open the possibility that god set things up so it knew life would appear on any planet halfway suited and Earth was a jewel for that and so, life started here, and scientists think it was the result of quadrillions of chemical 'experiments', that is to say, combinations and permutations of simple molecules morphing into more and more complex molecules as the result of energy inputs and the right kinds of 'nutrients' which would add different minerals, metals, elements and so forth to the mix. It could have happened from lightning hitting a beach and energizing molecules on a wet sand bank or it could have been in the deep vents in the ocean pouring out 200 degree C water that nearby chemicals could latch onto and multiply in complexity.
Of course right now, you are free to scoff all of that, that is a perfectly natural response of the religious set to that kind of idea.
Free for now that is. Some time in the future it may be proven exactly what happened on our planet 3 billion years ago and what planets and moons in the solar system and out of it in the galaxy, what kind of planet had the best chances for life showing up.
But my bet is this: Life will be found on just about every planet that has half way decent conditions, like the inside of Europa where it is thought to contain a VERY VERY deep ocean and in order for a liquid water ocean to be there, requires an external source of energy to maintain it as a liquid, and in Europa's case, that energy comes from interacting with Jupiter ionically and magnetically and maybe electrically.
If Jupiter was magically too far away for some reason, Europa was isolated a billion miles from the sun, the energy from the sun would be about 1% that of Earth, only 10 or so watts per square meters compared to 1300 odd watts we collect on top of Earth's atmosphere or on the surface of the moon or the solar panels on ISS. Of course those panels lose 75% so they end up with only about 300 watts per meter squared and that is fixed in space for now. Improvements in solar tech may double that number in ten years but that is another story.
Back to life origins, I think life will be found just about everywhere mankind visits in trips outside and inside the solar system, places where there is liquid water for our kind of life but that may be thinking inside the box, life may form from other basic materials, like silicon instead of carbon like we have here. It is a good bet that most life we run into in the rest of the solar system will be carbon based since the conditions that created the planets gave each one the same start.
06 Dec 16
Originally posted by sonhouseIf the universe was created, than it would follow it was done for a reason. Dead dirt, and
Just creating the universe does not automatically mean life is created. It could just as well have been, yes, a god created the universe, we think now 14 billion years ago.
That said, it does not follow we automatically were created ATT which we now know DIDN"T happen at all, we didn't come, we being the solar system, all the planets and moons including ...[text shortened]... will be carbon based since the conditions that created the planets gave each one the same start.
so on doesn't have meaning that is only found in life. A created universe would put your
ability to measure its beginning beyond your grasp since you'd have to know the proper
markers for a created universe to look at.
If the universe was created by the God scripture tells us about than your assumptions
about scripture and everything else is in error as well. As you cannot see the hand of
God in the universe beginning than your ability to see God in our day to day lives are
also beyond you at this time.
Why don't you respond to the point I have brought up about everything that is required
in this whole universe for life to be here?
06 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThe thing is, you don't have, nor does any other human on Earth ATT, to know what 'everything' required for life to be here. Humans are slowly working out exactly that but you have to realize we are still in kindergarten scientifically, especially in life sciences.
If the universe was created, than it would follow it was done for a reason. Dead dirt, and
so on doesn't have meaning that is only found in life. A created universe would put your
ability to measure its beginning beyond your grasp since you'd have to know the proper
markers for a created universe to look at.
If the universe was created by the God scri ...[text shortened]... I have brought up about everything that is required
in this whole universe for life to be here?
So don't chide people because they don't know, and of course, bible people don't know either, all they have is the scripture and that was written by men. An omniscient god could have easily written it out in one swell poop, but it didn't, leaving that job for humans and you of course know all about the contradictions in the bible which your omniscient god refused to edit, seems it would have gotten rid of the contradictions if it was interested, but it apparently was not interested enough to lend a hand to fix a very flawed book.
I think you don't WANT humans to figure out how life got here, you would be sorely disappointed to find a god was not involved in making life on Earth or anywhere else it may turn up in the Solar system and beyond.
All you can say now is maybe your god created the universe and for some unknown reason but one reason humans overwhelmingly think is we are so important to this god that it allegedly gave us ownership and guardianship of our jewel of a planet which we are doing our best to royally screw up, yet no god is forthcoming to bitch about the way we are destroying this alleged god's creation. Seems kind of odd a god would create a universe built for life and then when we are pooping in our garden, not a word from this god. If I was a god, I would be pisssed.
07 Dec 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI listed a hand full address those.
The thing is, you don't have, nor does any other human on Earth ATT, to know what 'everything' required for life to be here. Humans are slowly working out exactly that but you have to realize we are still in kindergarten scientifically, especially in life sciences.
So don't chide people because they don't know, and of course, bible people don't know eit ...[text shortened]... when we are pooping in our garden, not a word from this god. If I was a god, I would be pisssed.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
07 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't know, too many variables. Nothing in your question detracts or negates your earlier contradiction. You think a simple celled organism is too complex to not be designed and that your god does not require design. Does this make your god less complex than an amoeba?
If the universe was created than what in it wasn't created or owed its being to creation?
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieI don't think you've followed my point if you think I was only talking about putting the
I don't know, too many variables. Nothing in your question detracts or negates your earlier contradiction. You think a simple celled organism is too complex to not be designed and that your god does not require design. Does this make your god less complex than an amoeba?
pieces together. The whole universe had to be setup before life could be produced,
maintained, thrive, over time. It isn't just the matter of having all the pieces come together.
08 Dec 16
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIf the whole universe was setup to allow life then we are not alone. But the Universe is very very large and if the entire universe allows life, then it follows we are not the only species intelligent enough to have technology, therefore we are not unique but just one of billions of intelligent life forms in the universe.
I don't think you've followed my point if you think I was only talking about putting the
pieces together. The whole universe had to be setup before life could be produced,
maintained, thrive, over time. It isn't just the matter of having all the pieces come together.
I wonder what hard core bible belt Christians will think if we find dozens of alien civilizations in our neck of the galaxy?
Finding out we are not unique would be a real shock to bible belters I'm sure.
Of course they would rationalize it all away with pithy sayings anyway to try to keep the scam going.
There may be millions here in our own galaxy but we won't find out for a long time so you are safe from that tipping point.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayIm guessing you mean to reply to Sonhouse, as this appears to have no relevancy to my post to you.
I don't think you've followed my point if you think I was only talking about putting the
pieces together. The whole universe had to be setup before life could be produced,
maintained, thrive, over time. It isn't just the matter of having all the pieces come together.
08 Dec 16
4 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo, it was to you. Seeing how you didn't understand that I guessing you still don't grasp my
Im guessing you mean to reply to Sonhouse, as this appears to have no relevancy to my post to you.
point. Getting all of the proper ingredients in one spot on the planet would have been quite
a feat, yet they needed to be there so that the proper combinations could occur, at the
proper times during the process, and in the proper environment.
Now the proper environment doesn’t just mean a temperate climate if that was all that was
required, but also all the universal constants had to be too, from quite literally the stars
would have had to been properly aligned up all the way down to the laws of chemistry,
and so on.
"Does this make your god less complex than an amoeba"
Its much more complex than I think you realize given your input into this discussion so far.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayYou appear to be suggesting that things are even more complex if you take into consideration the universe and the creation of life......but this is why Im so baffled at your point...you see, there more complex you argue things are then the more you contridict yourself.
No, it was to you. Seeing how you didn't understand that I guessing you still don't grasp my
point. Getting all of the proper ingredients in one spot on the planet would have been quite
a feat, yet they needed to be there so that the proper combinations could occur, at the
proper times during the process, and in the proper environment.
Now the proper ...[text shortened]...
Its much more complex than I think you realize given your input into this discussion so far.
If you argue that the universe is so complex it needs a creator.....but then argue the creator doesnt need a creator then you are simply counter arguing yourself.....which was my original point.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieThe size and scope of what is required for life takes the whole universe into account.
You appear to be suggesting that things are even more complex if you take into consideration the universe and the creation of life......but this is why Im so baffled at your point...you see, there more complex you argue things are then the more you contridict yourself.
If you argue that the universe is so complex it needs a creator.....but then argu ...[text shortened]... snt need a creator then you are simply counter arguing yourself.....which was my original point.
That topic isn't connected to God's makeup.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by KellyJayyou are making a claim that complexity requires design....you are therefore, regardless if you want to or not claiming that either god is not complex or that god is complex but does not require design.
The size and scope of what is required for life takes the whole universe into account.
That topic isn't connected to God's makeup.
its relevant because if you are saying that god is complex and does not need design, then you are proving the point that the universe does not need desing.
If you are saying god is not complex the you are arguing that complexity can arise from the non complex , like life from basic chemicals.
either way your argument doesnt work.
08 Dec 16
Originally posted by stellspalfieI am quite sure changing what I have said may make your argument easier to make. I simply ask you to limit your argument to debating what I am actually saying instead of changing my words into something I have not said or announce as my point.
you are making a claim that complexity requires design....you are therefore, regardless if you want to or not claiming that either god is not complex or that god is complex but does not require design.
its relevant because if you are saying that god is complex and does not need design, then you are proving the point that the universe does not need des ...[text shortened]... from the non complex , like life from basic chemicals.
either way your argument doesnt work.