I'm trying to remember something.

So of late there have been alot of books and debates about atheism featuring the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. During one of these debates Hitchens was stumped by a particular question that I think mentioned the position of the Earth in our solar system and how vital this is to support life e.t.c. (radiation and sun rays i think were mentioned) The guy went onto say that if the Earth was just slightly out of place from this position then our Planet would not support life, thus supporting intelligent design. Can anyone recall this in more detail and whether there is a name for this theroy/argument?

sounds like a stupid arguement

i think a response to that was related to the big bang -> crunch theory, it's the idea that countless of universes have been created and destroyed without any conditions capable of supporting life. this is just the universe (one of them?) that does happen to support life, and we can't concieve how any alternative would look like.

  On 10/2/2009 at 10:40 PM, tbio2007 said:

So of late there have been alot of books and debates about atheism featuring the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. During one of these debates Hitchens was stumped by a particular question that I think mentioned the position of the Earth in our solar system and how vital this is to support life e.t.c. (radiation and sun rays i think were mentioned) The guy went onto say that if the Earth was just slightly out of place from this position then our Planet would not support life, thus supporting intelligent design. Can anyone recall this in more detail and whether there is a name for this theroy/argument?

this is somewhat of a variant on the 'fine tuning/fine structure' argument

however this is fairly offensive to me as a scientist and engineer. you use science, logic, and cumulative knowledge to extract useful information about planets (or indeed, anything you want to investigate) and match your theories to empirical observations. trying to work in reverse and say that small changes in the structural constituents (charges of electrons, placing in the universe, or what have you) of our world would throw everything off without an intelligent designer.....retarded.

everything we have learned about science/mathematics was create to pertain to and use in our PRESENT reality. trying to say that if you changed it life wouldn't exist is very true, but also ASTOUNDINGLY TRIVIAL.

end stupid rant. it just burns my ass hearing these types of arguments.

I'm not following... what was the question that stumped the guy? Cause the whole positioning thing isn't a question... and it's a horribly flimsy argument as well.

There is a Good Orderly Direction within all of us. I don't believe in the whole supreme being though.

this argument has always seemed absurd to me, even without the god part... it's like, yes, we know the universe is unfathomably large and not very well understood. but we, a species that lives only on earth, have only ever seen life on earth and therefore life can only exist on something exactly like earth. OK.

  On 10/2/2009 at 11:32 PM, spraaaa said:

this argument has always seemed absurd to me, even without the god part... it's like, yes, we know the universe is unfathomably large and not very well understood. but we, a species that lives only on earth, have only ever seen life on earth and therefore life can only exist on something exactly like earth. OK.

yes yes yes...

*bursts through drywall*

there is no God.

*is struck down by a bolt of lightening*

The Earth's positioning does not suggest a designer. However, our existence suggests that our planet has been and is able to support "a" type of life suited for its environment. Given the unimaginable size of our universe, why is it so strange that this planet would host life? Could you not imagine that there would be other planets on which life is capable of thriving?

And what is so remarkable about the existence of life that you should posit its designer? How biased.

Anselm of Canterbury

still my favorite pro-God arguement.

While I am personally not a believer in the Christian God, i find it perplexing that we continue to disprove the Christian God as opposed to fine tuning the meaning of what God is.

What is God in the first place? (other than the Judeo-Christian definition)

Is God a supreme being?

What is "being?"

and so on and so forth....these questions are much more important than trying to argue with some fundamentalist nut.

If we are the only existence of intelligent life forms, then thats an awful waste of space out there don't you think?

Slightly adapted Patrick Moore qoute for you there, and he is absolutely fucking right. WE have no evidence on Gods green earth (excuse the pun), that we have an all powerful creator. NO evidence at all, no physical evidence, just some myths, and a bible.

For fucks sake, Jesus christ.

I believe that there are other physical life forms out there somewhere, that perhaps we will never see, theres got to be something, but thats my own truth, no ones elses, just a belief that I have. The same belief that people choose to believe that God is one all powerful supreme being, it's peoples own truths, and no one is going to change somebody elses truth.

I do not believe in God as one all powerful entity, but I do have my own God, Good Orderly Direction, which is a higher power within me, that helps me, and I pray too, and it works, but it's a spiritual basis not a religious one.

  On 10/3/2009 at 12:20 AM, abusivegeorge said:

If we are the only existence of intelligent life forms, then thats an awful waste of space out there don't you think?

 

thank you jodie foster.

i'm amused by attempts to prove the existence of god. big waste of time. there will never be any proof. you either believe in something irrational or you dont. that's pretty much what faith is all about.

  On 10/3/2009 at 12:24 AM, Fred McGriff said:

  On 10/3/2009 at 12:20 AM, abusivegeorge said:

If we are the only existence of intelligent life forms, then thats an awful waste of space out there don't you think?

 

 

thank you jodie foster.

 

 

i'm amused by attempts to prove the existence of god. big waste of time. there will never be any proof. you either believe in something irrational or you dont. that's pretty much what faith is all about.

you just admitted you have a concept of God, but it is radically different from those who hold on to traditional monotheistic beliefs...and that, I find is far more interesting than arguing about say, a man in the clouds that throws lightning bolts.

what exactly is the nature of this concept? Why do we, to some extent, all share and understand this concept, and yet, are not sure of it, doubtful of it, and somewhat embrace it at the same time?

  On 10/3/2009 at 12:16 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Anselm of Canterbury

 

 

still my favorite pro-God arguement.

 

 

While I am personally not a believer in the Christian God, i find it perplexing that we continue to disprove the Christian God as opposed to fine tuning the meaning of what God is.

 

What is God in the first place? (other than the Judeo-Christian definition)

Is God a supreme being?

What is "being?"

 

and so on and so forth....these questions are much more important than trying to argue with some fundamentalist nut.

i totally agree . those ontological arguments are more right than any new-fangled religious philosophy. but at the same time, they refer to themselves in such a strong way that it's hard to really buy it.

but either way, cheers on that one.

and again, i think its foolish to attempt to prove a God, but just as foolish to disprove...we are so stuck because of historical progression on the idea of God contained within man-made mythos....what about the word and the meaning itself? so fascinating.

im not a expert philosopher or whatever, but i have such a strong feeling that this should be further examined and not these mythical omnipotent forms with human characteristics.

I am not doubtful of what I believe in, if something bad happens or goes wrong, and I experience shit that comes experiencing life on lifes terms, then thats how its meant to be, my concept of God just helps me to deal with that shit, it helps me to be comfortable within myself and honest with other people. I have a concept of God on a purely spiritual basis, and it stems from within my "soul" if you like, my soul remains happy most of the time, because I keep in touch with it.

i'm not aware of any attempts to disprove god. usually the argument is simply "there's no proof (you're retarded and juvenile because you have unlatched from the warm familiar teat of our immediate observations, surroundings, and limitations of the human brain)"

  On 10/2/2009 at 11:03 PM, benc812 said:

  On 10/2/2009 at 10:40 PM, tbio2007 said:

So of late there have been alot of books and debates about atheism featuring the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. During one of these debates Hitchens was stumped by a particular question that I think mentioned the position of the Earth in our solar system and how vital this is to support life e.t.c. (radiation and sun rays i think were mentioned) The guy went onto say that if the Earth was just slightly out of place from this position then our Planet would not support life, thus supporting intelligent design. Can anyone recall this in more detail and whether there is a name for this theroy/argument?

 

this is somewhat of a variant on the 'fine tuning/fine structure' argument

 

however this is fairly offensive to me as a scientist and engineer. you use science, logic, and cumulative knowledge to extract useful information about planets (or indeed, anything you want to investigate) and match your theories to empirical observations. trying to work in reverse and say that small changes in the structural constituents (charges of electrons, placing in the universe, or what have you) of our world would throw everything off without an intelligent designer.....retarded.

 

everything we have learned about science/mathematics was create to pertain to and use in our PRESENT reality. trying to say that if you changed it life wouldn't exist is very true, but also ASTOUNDINGLY TRIVIAL.

 

end stupid rant. it just burns my ass hearing these types of arguments.

  On 10/3/2009 at 12:29 AM, Fred McGriff said:

i'm not aware of any attempts to disprove god. usually the argument is simply "there's no proof (you're retarded and juvenile because you have unlatched from the warm familiar teat of our immediate observations, surroundings, and limitations of the human brain)"

how juvenile though in reality, is a belief in something that we are currently at least unable to comprehend with all our sober senses?

is ESP real?

is "imagination" real? if imagination is a series of electrical impulses traveling in a certain way, why is it that some people have overactive imaginations and others close to none at all? why is it relative?

these are not concepts we can feel according to our traditional senses, and yet many believe there is an existence of these things....they are not scientific, merely,scientific explanations are created to explain what they are i guess

again, its the subjective we concentrate on versus perhaps the objective

oh btw, i dont believe the Anselm argument, im just amazed at how he was able to construct that argument given the time period, and how it basically went unchallenged until centuries later.

i hope someone here is trying to understand what im getting at here.

its not like im holding up a cross and saying "Jesus still lives!" or some shit,

lol, to be honest I have no understanding of what I believe in and I have no desire to, it helps and works for me and thats all I need to know. Because of this I have never reseacrhed, nor have I ever been interested in researching concepts of God, they are merely possibly explanations to ones existence, there is no fact behind them, so I don't see the point in pointing a blurb to my faith.