Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most scientist may agree that life elsewhere is possible but I would doubt that most would say that it was "certain"??
I said "almost certain", which is the position of most scientists who have weighed in on the issue, from what I've seen. Even the people on this board seem to be agreeing so far, that it's likely there is some sort of life elsewhere in the universe.
But I didnt. Try reading what I wrote again. I said you have two "conclusions" BASED on assumptions.
And I'm saying that they aren't assumptions. Simply calling them "assumptions" doesn't make them so.
Quote:
The assumption in each case is the conclusion from the other case. Thats what a circular argument is. Look it up.
Yes, I know what a circular argument is, but there's nothing circular about my argument. Calling my argument "circular" doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Dont get me wrong, if either of your assumptions turns out to be valid then your "conclusions" are on some fairly decent ground. But until then, assumptions is all they are.
No, they're not assumptions, except in your mind.
Quote:
Were you to take either of the assumptions and work them in isolation and show either one to be valid, you would be doing much better than you are now. Until then it is your problem and not mine, because you are just making things up essentially.
Feel free to believe that if it makes you feel better.
Nor does calling them conclusions make them so either. Which is why I asked you to evidence the claims as otherwise we are at an impasse.
Your continued unwillingness (my conclusion/assumption here: Your inability) to do so speaks volumes.
Until the claims are evidenced then I have no option BUT to consider them assumptions. Just like calling a spade a spade does not make it a spade.... but sharing all the characteristics OF a spade does. Your "claims" share all the hallmarks of assumptions given they are unsubstantiated, unevidenced, not backed up, and merely declared by you by fiat without support.
No you don't because faith is based on something that is not known. It IS known that, usually, planes do not crash. Faith, in such a situation, is not required.
It most certainly is, since you don't "know" that a given plane won't crash. That they usually don't doesn't mean that you "know" that this particular one won't.
Quote:
You use faith when:
1. There is no verifiable evidence to support what you believe....or
2. There is verifiable evidence to say that what you believe is false..... but you continue to believe it's true anyway.
No, you use faith when you can't prove what you believe. If there is evidence, but it's not conclusive, then believing in it is faith.
Quote:
One would assume that if we have come to a conclusion that something is "most likely true" then there is enough verifiable evidence to support the conclusion. If such is the case then again, faith does not come into it...evidence does.
Faith involves an absence of proof, not an absence of evidence. Faith is when you believe in something without knowing it for certain. When you know it for certain, then it's knowledge, not faith.
Nor does calling them conclusions make them so either. Which is why I asked you to evidence the claims as otherwise we are at an impasse.
I've been explaining why I believe these claims for the last 26 pages or so. I used to be an atheist, but then realized that naturalism didn't explain the universe's propensity for creating and sustaining life as well as the idea that it was purposefully created does.
Quote:
Your continued unwillingness (my conclusion/assumption here: Your inability) to do so speaks volumes.
Yet I've been doing so my entire time on this board. I've been explaining why I believe what I do, and then you have no problem assuming that they're just assumptions.
Quote:
Until the claims are evidenced then I have no option BUT to consider them assumptions.
So if you don't buy my explanation for why I believe in them, then you think it's okay to call them "assumptions"? Got it.
Quote:
Your "claims" share all the hallmarks of assumptions given they are unsubstantiated, unevidenced, not backed up, and merely declared by you by fiat without support.
Since your claim that my beliefs are just assumptions is, itself, unsubstantiated, unevidenced, not backed up and merely declared by you, then it's just an assumption on your part, right?
Sorry, but I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said on the board for your benefit. I joined in back on page 31 and have been explaining the reasoning that took me from atheism to belief in God. That you don't find my reasoning convincing (as is your right) doesn't mean that it's all just "assumptions" on my part. If you want to believe that they're just assumptions, feel free to believe it. But it's just an assumption on your part.
It most certainly is, since you don't "know" that a given plane won't crash. That they usually don't doesn't mean that you "know" that this particular one won't.
By this standard, since nothing is 100% absolutely certain everything is faith. But we still need a way to differentiate between faith in things which we have compelling evidence for (planes not crashing) and faith in things that have no evidence for them and lots of evidence against them (i.e. religious belief). Pretending to win rhetorical points by intentionally confusing the two doesn't add much to your case - it just shows you have to resort to meaningless word games to distract from the fact you have no reason at all to believe what you believe.
Since your claim that my beliefs are just assumptions is, itself, unsubstantiated, unevidenced, not backed up and merely declared by you, then it's just an assumption on your part, right?
No, mostly because it's not unsubstantiated. Anyway, discussions don't work if one person keeps throwing out random stuff and demand that everyone else disprove it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the people listening to it.
Bottom line: We all get to believe what we want to believe, and nobody gets to inflict their beliefs on another.
Myself: I struggled with the "Is there a God?" question for decades. My first Bible was a gift from my Dad, after one of his store clerks told him that I'd told the clerk I didn't understand how there could be a god. After about 40 years of pondering the question by reading the world's religions and myths, I came to understand that belief in God is not a puzzle to work out in the mind. God just is and we cannot know God because our minds cannot grasp the immensity.
I've come to know that all that is, discovered and undiscovered, is in God and of God. There is no dogma that is broad and encompassing enough to describe or explain God. God just IS.
On the other hand, God doesn't really care if we believe, or not. God STILL IS.
Be well, and accept all God's blessings into your life. 8)
I've been explaining why I believe these claims for the last 26 pages or so.
And I have been explaining why your explanation does not hold. You are claiming there is a purpose. You are claiming there is a creator. You are not evidencing either of these things.
Instead you enter into circular arguments or assuming one is true and using it as evidence for the other. Then you repeat for the reverse.
And instead of evidencing these claims you are just going on that they are "not assumptions" yet until you evidence either of the claims then "assumptions" is exactly what they appear to be. "Established" they certainly are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
realized that naturalism didn't explain the universe's propensity for creating and sustaining life as well as the idea that it was purposefully created does.
It certainly does not explain it because the exact same questions would then have to be asked about the entity itself. You are essentially not answering anything, but moving the questions you want answered to one side and using the idea of a "god" as a cop out for ever answering them. You are therefore not only stuck with your circular arguments, you are also stuck with infinite regress.
Also the universe does not have a "propensity" for creating life specifically at all. In fact given how rare life appears to be, in that we are only aware of it being present in the most tiny imaginable dot of a spot in the universe... creating life seems to be something it does not have any natural inclination to do compared to... say.... its propensity for creating stars and black holes.
Because even most scientists agree that there is almost certainly life elsewhere...
Yes, that's why I made sure to stress "known" in my statement. Do we know that life exists anywhere else? Nope, we sure don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
...meaning that they view the universe as a place where life is inevitable, that our existence wasn't just an accident.
Possible != inevitable. The odds of our planet being the only one to sustain life are small, but that doesn't guarantee life on other planets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
No. Lotteries are built to favor the fact that people will win them now and then, but that doesn't mean that people will win more often than not.
fa·vored, fa·vor·ing, fa·vors
v.tr.
1. To perform a kindness or service for; oblige. See Synonyms at oblige.
2. To treat or regard with friendship, approval, or support.
3. To be partial to; indulge a liking for: favors bright colors.
4. To be or tend to be in support of.
5. To make easier or more possible; facilitate: Darkness favored their escape.
6. To treat with care; be gentle with: favored my wounded leg.
7. Chiefly Southern U.S. To resemble in appearance: She favors her father.
v.intr. Chiefly Southern U.S.
To resemble another in appearance: She and her father favor.
The odds of winning the lottery are millions against one. You see that as facilitating? Our universe absolutely does not FAVOR life, it simply doesn't make it impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8
Then how has it continued to thrive for billions of years? Here, for certain. Elsewhere, almost certainly.
The duration of supported life has nothing to do with it. If 1 out of a billion environments can support life, regardless of the duration, that would have to be considered hostile towards life support. Hell, even if it's 100 or a 1000 out of a billion, that's still pretty hostile, IMO.
Now take into account that there are thought to be multiple billions of planets in our universe, not a single billion. Still this is the only planet we know to sustain life. That's a long way from "to make easier or facilitate" life. No?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
