[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by chtulu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin's principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs.

Also, there is evidence of why Our universe does not require a God to function (aka, evidence). Newtonian Laws explain phenomenons that were only explained through metaphors and stories based on God. Physics in general as solved many mysteries that we once chalked up to just "God's work". Evolution is another huge scientific understanding that further shows that God was not required to have animals live and change. Let's not also forget genetics and astronomy that have played their roles. You don't here people explaining that the Sky is blue because it's God's favorite color, or that we have droughts because he's angry with us. No, it is explained in ways humans understand, and that require no divine intervention.

What really confuses me is that you some how equate life outside of this planet to a divine entity that is omnipotent and omission. We are proof that it is capable to have life on a planet, why would we think that life couldn't happen any where else? We have an example of why it's plausible that there can be life elsewhere, we don't, however, have an example of super natural beings that have existed to postulate the existence of other divine creatures.

But it's ok, you're just like any other typical Theist. No real argument, just ad homniems and absurd, invalid logic. But thanks for being a condescending dick.

1 - If you believe that any of the current theories regarding the origins and development of life on Earth provide a "deeply satisfying explanation" for everything we see and know, you're an idiot or you're ignorant -- there's no middle ground. Even evolution, the most basic and most substantiated theory for how life has developed, is very much incomplete. Read: not deeply satisfying. And that doesn't even begin to touch upon the primordial ooze origins, which is essentially guesswork. Not that it matters. What you seemingly can't wrap your head around is that there's no zero-sum argument regarding science and religion. It's perfectly acceptable for the physical laws of the universe to govern all development on Earth. The question is how were these laws created? How was the universe created? Everything observable to humanity has a beginning and an end: what was the beginning of the universe? If you say a primeval atom, as attested in the Big Bang Theory, what makes you any more certain than someone who says a sentient Creator? Answer: nothing. Any discussion of the origin of the universe is, by definition, a *highly* unproven theory based as much on guesswork as anything else. On a universal scale, we're smaller than ants. We can adequately describe the universe's origins insofar as an ant can adequately describe Earth's origins. Read: not at all.

2 - You continue to cite the disproval of old beliefs of Divine Intervention as evidence that God doesn't exist. Like I stated above, it's equivalent to someone "disproving" the existence of extraterrestrial life by showing Billy Bob that the UFO in his backyard is a firefly. You're not disproving the existence of extraterrestrial life: you're proving that the "UFO" is a firefly, and that Billy is an idiot. Nothing more, nothing less.

3 - And your last paragraph of debate just proves how in over your head you are -- even without remarking upon the difference between "omission" and "omniscient", which I assume is what you meant. You say, "We are proof that it is possible to have life on a planet. Why wouldn't we think it could happen anywhere else?" I say we are proof of the creative powers of sentient beings. Why couldn't that explain the creation of the universe? Mankind is capable of creating life -- we've done it. We're capable of creating or re-creating many of the elements and conditions of our universe. If the existence of mankind depended upon it, we could probably even create a new "planet" -- of course it would be mechanic, not organic, but that's not really the point. So who's to say that an infinitely more advanced sentient Being is not responsible for the creation of the universe as we know it? It's far from objective fact, but it's just as valid as a belief in a primeval atom. And it's just as grounded in observable evidence as the notion that "We are evidence of life on a planet, so there's life on a planet elsewhere." Hell, we can knock off both of these birds with one stone -- who's to say that this life on another planet isn't a hyper-advanced species that forged the universe, including its physical properties, while creating all life as they saw fit? There you go -- you've got sentient Creator and extraterrestrial life all wrapped up in one theory, and it's not any less absurd than the notion of a primeval atom. And it's all based on a modicum of observable evidence and a heap of guesswork.