Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Well, most of us mere mortals can't claim to be 100% certain of anything, seemingly unlike yourself.

Outside of the fact that most of what you said was totally wrong, I think you painted yourself out to be one of those intolerant, know-it-all types who thinks he has a better grasp on the universe than the rest of us.

Namely, you were acting like what I had just said was a fool.

Excellent argument.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

I don't claim to be able to prove or disprove anything... I believe what I believe, and I point out how nobody knows anything for certain. If you were wise, you'd do the same.

Oh, I'm well aware of the whole "nobody knows anything for certain" stuff. Perhaps you should consider a little concept called "reasonable doubt" versus "unreasonable doubt". It's, you know, that thing that allows humans to act vaguely like there's an objective reality.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Oh, and before you go talking about abiogenesis, you might want to actually know what you're talking about. Life is a smidgen more complicated than repeating hydrocarbons, and that catalyst you referred to is an enzyme - something which only comes from other living things. As far as we know it, life requires life. Its not to say it can't be discovered otherwise, but then again, I can say the same thing for God.

Yes, modern cells can't be created suddenly. But there is more that can self-replicate other than enzymes - ribozymes. Jeez, it took three and a half seconds on wikipedia to find that.

Almost mythical? That right there invalidates your point, because if "almost," then there's a possibility they were real, had a queen, and Alexander the Great slept with her.

It's also possible that I slept with the queen of the Amazons, and only slightly less likely.

I mean, are you really trying to disprove my point by pointing out that it's possible that Alexander the Great did it with the queen of the Amazons? Seriously?

Like, what do you mean by other documents? And no, they're not zero, that's an arrogant statement to make because it presumes you know the whole of human history, including what every human being capable of writing was writing about around the time of Jesus's miracles.

Let me rephrase that for you, just in case I was previously unclear: Why does no one besides the Bible mention this, for example?

Originally Posted by Matthew 27:51-54

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son[e] of God!"

You have a few good points but they're buried under mounds of--ironically, enough, all things considered--holier than thou douchebaggery. No one is going to bother noticing or seriously considering your points so long as you're being a dick about it. Same was as religious zealots piss us off with their "I'm right, and that's it times infinity," you're acting the same way but coming from MY camp, which I find, honestly, offensive.

I think you may want to rephrase this...

Right now, it seems to read that you're saying that having actual points but stating them rudely and "I'm right times infinity" are the same.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by Serenity

I mean, are you really trying to disprove my point by pointing out that it's possible that Alexander the Great did it with the queen of the Amazons? Seriously?

I don't think you get to mock me for running with a point you introduced into the argument.

[Krylo]

I think you may want to rephrase this...

Right now, it seems to read that you're saying that having actual points but stating them rudely and "I'm right times infinity" are the same.

You might want to re-read that.

Originally Posted by Me with bolding

"I'm right, and that's it times infinity,"

It's the 'and that's it, you'll never prove me wrong, I'm ignoring all your points, and I'm going to keep spouting the same frustrating shit over and over' that being overtly, condescendingly, and unforgivably rude is like.

In the context as that it does nothing but piss off the opposition and leave them in no mood to read any actual points you have.

Regardless, I don't do religious discussion (anymore), so be very surprised if I come back here.

Blessed be her hooves.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

I don't think you get to mock me for running with a point you introduced into the argument.

No, I don't.

But I do get to mock you for completely ignoring the point - that being that it's not terribly likely that Alexander did it with the queen of the Amazons, and the probability is similar to that of Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. Indeed, I would say it is quite, quite unlikely - that is, it's even more reasonable to say that Alexander actually did it with the queen of the Amazons.

The point is, they're both quite, quite, quite unlikely.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Originally Posted by Serenity

No, I don't.

But I do get to mock you for completely ignoring the point - that being that it's not terribly likely that Alexander did it with the queen of the Amazons, and the probability is similar to that of Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. Indeed, I would say it is quite, quite unlikely - that is, it's even more reasonable to say that Alexander actually did it with the queen of the Amazons.

The point is, they're both quite, quite, quite unlikely.

That's not a stance I disagree with. It's just that occasionally the unlikely happens, which is why it's not the impossible.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by Roy_D_Mylote

That's not a stance I disagree with. It's just that occasionally the unlikely happens, which is why it's not the impossible.

Basically everything is "possible" (there are some few things that are, by definition, impossible - round squares, cubical spheres, omnipotent beings who want me to know of their existence and nature now, et cetera). It's just that there is no point in considering almost all possibilities. It's possible that I'm really an alien brain bug infecting the mind of your mother and telepathically manipulating the internet while simultaneously performing long division. It's just not a reasonable possibility. Just because something is possible is no reason to consider it functionally so.

[Roy_D_Mylote]

Just because something is unlikely, even extremely unlikely, is no reason to believe it to be definitively not so.

[POS Industries]

It is, also, highly unlikely that the chain of events necessary to result in the existence of Earth as it is today could just happen at random. And yet here we are.

[Sithdarth]

It is, also, highly unlikely that the chain of events necessary to result in the existence of Earth as it is today could just happen at random. And yet here we are.

That is not a logically correct statement on several fronts:

1) We don't know how likely the chain of events really are having only seen life at one spot.

2) Your confusing cause and effect and trying to assign it a meaning. Given the vast number of planets and stars and such the law of large numbers pretty much guarantees that intelligent life adapted somewhere. It makes no sense to say "It was extremely unlikely for this planet we evolved on to be able to support life" because we obviously wouldn't have evolved if life wasn't possible. That is to say something about its creation gave it a significantly high probability to support life/intelligence. That is to say we can look back and see everything that could have gone wrong but we don't actually know the chances that those things would have gone wrong. In fact, our existence now pretty much necessitates that the initial conditions of our solar system were such that the probability of these things going wrong were very low.

3) Point two can be extended to the entire universe in several different logical ways through Quantum mechanics. The most succinct way would probably be the infinite universe interpretation. Which basically boils down to well duh intelligent life develops in those universes with the highest probability of intelligent life. Again the law of large numbers basically assures it.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

1) We don't know how likely the chain of events really are having only seen life at one spot.

Which is nice except there's no solid evidence of life having thrived beyond the bacterial level anywhere but Earth.

2) Your confusing cause and effect and trying to assign it a meaning. Given the vast number of planets and stars and such the law of large numbers pretty much guarantees that intelligent life adapted somewhere. It makes no sense to say "It was extremely unlikely for this planet we evolved on to be able to support life" because we obviously wouldn't have evolved if life wasn't possible. That is to say something about its creation gave it a significantly high probability to support life/intelligence. That is to say we can look back and see everything that could have gone wrong but we don't actually know the chances that those things would have gone wrong. In fact, our existence now pretty much necessitates that the initial conditions of our solar system were such that the probability of these things going wrong were very low.

I never attempted to assign any meaning to anything. My point was that, just because the odds of something happening are next to impossible does not mean that it cannot happen.

However, since we've had this argument before, I'll again note that there's no evidence that life can be supported in a non-Earthlike environment as we've never officially seen it happen ever. Furthermore, probability is not a guarantee. Just because there's a one in a trillion chance of something happening does not mean that if you try it a trillion times it'll happen, because there's a one in a trillion chance of it happening each time you try.

3) Point two can be extended to the entire universe in several different logical ways through Quantum mechanics. The most succinct way would probably be the infinite universe interpretation. Which basically boils down to well duh intelligent life develops in those universes with the highest probability of intelligent life. Again the law of large numbers basically assures it.

You're arguing against highly improbable and wholly unproven deistic creation with highly improbable and wholly unproven infinite universe postulation? More power to ya.