If faith was blind belief, why would it be of such importance?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Statistically speaking, a teapot orbiting Jupiter would be more likely than life evolving on Earth based on current knowledge.

That's a ridiculous statement. If life never evolved on earth, there could be no such thing as "tea", let alone a teapot.

Statistically, the chances of a teapot orbiting Jupiter is 0.0, had intelligent life (including tea plants) not evolved somewhere.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.

That's not how it works!
The one making the claim may be asked to back it up, not the one asking for proof.
Again: you don't know that "no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter."
That's another unprouvable claim.

You don't know, and can't prove that somebody putting one there, is the only possible way that one could be there.

No, I do know that no one has put a teapot near Jupiter. Our endeavours into space are well recorded.

Sorry. Don't agree.
It seems impossible for anyone to know that as a fact.
Nobody knows everything that everyone has done.

Nobody knows for sure that there are no tea-drinking, teapot-flinging aliens.

Nobody knows for sure that our documented endeavours, are the only possible past endeavours.

Sorry but that claim can't be proven.

a reply to: Mach2

What is ridiculous is your post. Please explain to me the process by which life evolves and the experimental evidence proving said theory and establishing the statistical probability.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Why would you accept your religion over demonstratable and reproducible science?

By my definition, religion is societal, how people interact and such; rules, norms, etiquette, stuff like that. I get such ideas from a Sociology Introduction course decades ago. I don't have any reason to abandon these ideas.

I usually do accept demonstrable and reproducible science. No particular reason not to.

My rant was a reaction to notions that nothing is real, not even time. I feel it in my bones though; time has passed and I can't run as fast or as far as I used to.

a reply to: pthena

There is no acceptable and demonstrable evidence concerning the origins of life.

a reply to: Nothin

Nobody knows for sure that there are no tea-drinking, teapot-flinging aliens.

Agnosticism is a matter of faith. You believe it is possible that aliens put a teapot around Jupiter, without proving how it is even possible. You should not leave your mind so open that your brains fall out.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

So I am confused. Lincoln is real and not just a literary character, but is also a literary character. You said earlier that both are impossible.

Yes, Lincoln the being does not exist. He died a long time ago. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

If he is a literary character how did he ever exist since both can not be true according to you?

I said Lincoln was a historical figure, not a literary character. Let’s not reduce ourselves to strawmen.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.

That's not how it works!
The one making the claim may be asked to back it up, not the one asking for proof.
Again: you don't know that "no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter."
That's another unprouvable claim.

You don't know, and can't prove that somebody putting one there, is the only possible way that one could be there.

No, I do know that no one has put a teapot near Jupiter. Our endeavours into space are well recorded.

Sorry. Don't agree.
It seems impossible for anyone to know that as a fact.
Nobody knows everything that everyone has done.

Nobody knows for sure that there are no tea-drinking, teapot-flinging aliens.

Nobody knows for sure that our documented endeavours, are the only possible past endeavours.

Sorry but that claim can't be proven.

True, but wouldn't teapot slinging aliens fly in the face of most ppls version of the god that created humans in his own image?

Or does god just meander about the universe creating humans willy nilly? Because if that's the case, humans aren't special at all.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

I am not surprised.

I’m not surprised you’d say something so unintelligible.

It's already explained and I am not apt to repeat myself.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.

So you believe Abraham Lincoln exists.

Is my belief relevant? He did or he did not. You seem to be claiming if he is found in books he is not real. I find it an odd position.

Yes, Abraham Lincoln once existed, and is now a historical figure in our books. But no, he does not exist as anything else. But if you can find me any historical figure, literary character, or legend that exists today, I’m totally open to being proven wrong.

So I am confused. Lincoln is real and not just a literary character, but is also a literary character. You said earlier that both are impossible.

Yes, Lincoln the being does not exist. He died a long time ago. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

If he is a literary character how did he ever exist since both can not be true according to you?

I said Lincoln was a historical figure, not a literary character. Let’s not reduce ourselves to strawmen.

Abraham Lincoln is a literary character.
www.imdb.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Mach2

What is ridiculous is your post. Please explain to me the process by which life evolves and the experimental evidence proving said theory and establishing the statistical probability.

My comment had nothing to do with the origins of life, but you know that.

It's ridiculous to cite the statistical chances of something happening, compared to another, when one is dependent upon the other.

By the way, aren't teapot statistics off topic?

You are, to say the least, entertaining.

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Mach2

While i realize "faith" and religion are not the same thing, they are inseparable.

To you, perhaps. To many others as well. And horrid things have been done in the name of religion, yes.
But faith in God is a stand-alone concept. No 'religion' required. You could grow up on an island away from civilization and still commune with the Higher Power, without anyone saying a word about It. Religion is man's bastardization of faith, as a means of controlling the masses. Jesus didn't come to start Christianity. At all.

You are still relying on faith that you are not just talking to yourself. And as soon as someone else shows up, they will disagree on some point of your claim.

If I am just talking to myself... who is this wise Self who advises me? How do YOU know that what you call your Conscience is not the Holy Spirit. Does the name really matter that much, if the result is the same? Why reject the concept of a Higher Consciousness in the universe so vehemently? Is it fear? I'm asking seriously, not combatively.

Hola Nuevo Aqui!
Long time no see! Hope you are well.

How do you know that the holy spirit that you are communing with, is not just another aspect of your complex mind?
Or perhaps it is the hive-mind consciousness of the hundreds of trillions of gut bacteria, whom are directly connected to your brain via the vagas-nerve?

Don't nobody know, me thinks.

Don't nobody know nothin.

Hey Sweet Nuthins (LoL)
These are great questions. I don't know exactly the nature of God, only a knowing sense of a Loving, Benevolent voice (not literally audible, but like the zap of a message appearing in my Inbox/Mind.) It is similar to the inner dialogue we all have, but.. different. Like flashes of insight/understanding when my mind is quiet and zoned into drawing or doing yoga or something. I've pondered what we refer to as the Collective Unconscious being an aspect of God, or that concept of each of us being a tendril of the Spirit of God experiencing existence in a "Hue Man" meatsuit, as neurons to one brain.

I only know that when I am 'plugged in' I know that I am. In those moments I am a better person, and happy or at least peaceful.

You have described your feeling of 'connectedness', rather well, me thinks.
Are you open to considering that many may have similar experiences, and then attribute them to something other than god, or the holy-spirit?
Or perhaps attribute them to a different god?

Personally do experience those types of seemingly ego-destroying connectedness, but don't ascribe them to any particular 'thing' that is outside of that experience.
Are they the same? Who knows, as these are sorta intangible, and so difficult to put into words.
From many explanations: they seem similar.
But perhaps that's as close as we can get to comparing them.

Are they similar to what other folks experience? Hindus? Jews? Buddhists? Christians? Dummies like me?

a reply to: Mach2

Sorry, it does. Life can not get to where it is today without having started.

You are making one dependent on the other, no one else is.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

Statistically speaking, a teapot orbiting Jupiter would be more likely than life evolving on Earth based on current knowledge.

That's a ridiculous statement. If life never evolved on earth, there could be no such thing as "tea", let alone a teapot.

Statistically, the chances of a teapot orbiting Jupiter is 0.0, had intelligent life (including tea plants) not evolved somewhere.

Doesn't seem impossible that a lifeless universe could 'create' something like a cup, or a plate, so how can a teapot be 0.0?

a reply to: Mach2

Listen, I don't care you do not believe in God. Stop trying to make your belief more than it is. Science is not on your side. Facts are not on your side. Statistical probability is not on your side.

In the end it is belief, nothing more.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: Nothin

Nobody knows for sure that there are no tea-drinking, teapot-flinging aliens.

Agnosticism is a matter of faith. You believe it is possible that aliens put a teapot around Jupiter, without proving how it is even possible. You should not leave your mind so open that your brains fall out.

You can't support your claim that it is impossible.
It's not a belief: it was merely pointing-out the logical fallacies in your claim that is was impossible.

Sorry: but you can't shift this one back on me, without backing-up your claim, that came before my challenge.
Shall we not deal with your claim, before the challenge?
If we deal with my challenge, are we not then accepting your claim?

a reply to: Seede

Tell me, how in the world can you have an absence of anything without first having something to have its absence?

There are an infinite number of things that you don't believe exist. Do I have enumerate then for you decide they don't exist?

You can't have the absence of nothing because if there is nothing then there is no absence.

When someone tells me about their "God" for the first time, I can either believe it to be true, reject it as truth or be undecided.

An atheist rejects your "God", and all the other "God" that have been hypothetically presented to them to believe in, as truth. An atheist doesn't think about "gods" when they contemplate their life. The prospect of real gods are absent from their reality. Proposing to an atheist that your god is real doesn't make your god real to an atheist.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Mach2

Sorry, it does. Life can not get to where it is today without having started.

You are making one dependent on the other, no one else is.

So, it's your position that there could be a teapot orbiting Jupiter, without life evolving on earth?

That's all I'm trying to get at.

I believe, as you apparently do, that life originating on any particular planet is a very very very rare occurance. The necessary conditions happening, in order, at precicely the right time (in the grand scheme) are hugely against the odds.

Given the vastness of the universe though, the odds are pretty good that it happens somewhere.

I also realize the odds of life, and the odds of intelligent life are vastly different things.

It is my "opinion" that life on earth began through chemical reactions, combined with electrical charges.

The leap from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms is a bit more difficult to explain. Science evolves as new things are learned, and i expect some day mankind will have answers to some of these questions. Probably not in my lifetime, unfortunately.

Look how much has been learned in the last century.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.

I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.

That's not how it works!
The one making the claim may be asked to back it up, not the one asking for proof.
Again: you don't know that "no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter."
That's another unprouvable claim.

You don't know, and can't prove that somebody putting one there, is the only possible way that one could be there.

No, I do know that no one has put a teapot near Jupiter. Our endeavours into space are well recorded.

Sorry. Don't agree.
It seems impossible for anyone to know that as a fact.
Nobody knows everything that everyone has done.

Nobody knows for sure that there are no tea-drinking, teapot-flinging aliens.

Nobody knows for sure that our documented endeavours, are the only possible past endeavours.

Sorry but that claim can't be proven.

True, but wouldn't teapot slinging aliens fly in the face of most ppls version of the god that created humans in his own image?

Or does god just meander about the universe creating humans willy nilly? Because if that's the case, humans aren't special at all.

Does it matter how it relates to some folks' visions?
Feels like there be way too many different 'ppls versions', for us to clearly see similarities betwixt them.
We may, with arduous observation, perhaps see some patters emerge, but oh the so many potential different versions!

Who know what some supposed god may, or may not do.
Maybe, if god exists, she does everything, and at the same time too! LoL.

originally posted by: Mach2

So, it's your position that there could be a teapot orbiting Jupiter, without life evolving on earth?

If life was created on Earth then there could be a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

I have zero problem with you thinking it is more likely life evolved through some unknown as of yet mechanism that will be eventually found. I disagree with you, but I completely respect your opinion. I can only go on what we know, and what we know currently has no answer for that.

Let's say 5 years from now an answer is found. Does that prohibit a Creator from creating a universe with the exact set of rules to facilitate His creation?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists.

Give me the numbers. Probability is measurable. If you can't give me numbers you are talking belief, akin to faith, not probability.

In order for me to present the numbers, you’ll need to present your evidence. Then we will calculate it’s validity based on it’s merit.

Until you present evidence for the existence of a god, that number will be zero.

The same as if i claim there is a magical dragon in my garage. Without evidence, that claim is unlikely. Right?

I don't need to present anything. YOU are the one talking probability. That requires numbers. If you have none then you are making a false claim, instead say you have faith there is no God.

You are going around in circles. If you don’t present evidence, then how can i judge how likely your extraordinary claims are? If you are going on faith, then the numbers are zero