There are more than 10,000 stars for every grain of sand on earth… If only 0.00000001% had a habitable planet, there are still millions of habitable planets in the universe. Is earth rare? Yes, but to say that proves the god of the bible is a real entity, is more than a ridiculous statement.
Furthermore, once I learned about the miller-urey experiment where it was shown that amino acids (building blocks of proteins and DNA/RNA) can be spontaneously created by simple gasses like methane, ammonia, and Hydrogen, it was all over for the thought of an intelligent creator.
You might enjoy a collection of essays of the lectures of Carl Sagan called the Varieties of Scientific Experiences. He had one on the organic universe. Where he talked about how absurdly common organic compounds are in our solar system, had a little mention of the first time cyanide was discovered on a comet. I am not sure if this is currently accepted or just at the time of writing but he also argued that those compounds formed when the solar system was still just a rotating disc of gas and dust.
Life “choose” to use what was common, and it is common because the stuff life has access to was stuff that was less likely to decay. It is survivorship bias.
Agreed on the thrust of your comment but i also saw that a few changes to the nature of earth and everything changes. For example, a bit bigger and we could not use a rocket to leave orbit as it would exceed the power ratios. A bit closer to the sun etc.
And the fact that it took 4bn years.
The raw maths produces alot of planets but they still have to be Goldilocks
We couldn’t use a chemical rocket correct. A bit bigger meaning about 6x the size of earth by mass if I remember that article correctly. Nuclear rockets would be all we have, you know that tech we looked into and didn’t pursue over 60 years ago. Unless of course we really only accepted rockets instead of using plain ballistics and orbital machines. I don’t know why you think it matters to some god that we go into space, nothing in the holy writings of humanity indicates that. Also if that was the goal I doubt NASA would have been stuck in LEO for 52 years and counting.
You are right you need a lot of things to go right to get us. Here is another fun fact. Take a deck of cards and shuffle them. The odds of that combination is 1 out of 52!, which is about 1.24e-66%. Put another way, imagine a 1% of something happening, now imagine some event is a 10 million billion billion billion billion billion billion as likely as that happening, that number is the odds of that particular deck existing. And yet a particular arrangement happens thousands of times a minute.
Just because any given outcome is unlikely doesn’t mean no outcome is possible.
Sounds like confirmation bias. Agnosticism is probably the most reasonable take you can live by. If there’s a universe so unimaginably big, how is it impossible to think there could be an entity so unimaginably beyond our existence. As we are to bacteria, say.
I think the vastness of the universe makes it even less likely for a creator being, due to the pointlessness of it all. If there was a god they could make our galaxy work without a universe to support it, and we wouldve never been the wiser.
It is more likely that natural forces due to physics and chemistry created the universe, the galaxys, our planet, and us. There is most likely some constant expansion and contraction that repeats, which continues the cycle of death and rebirth over and over again forever. There is no beginning and there is no end, there is no purpose except for the purpose you make for yourself and your loved ones.
It’s arrogance to think you’re even on the right path of anything imo. Personally why agnosticism is the only logical outcome. There’s things we can observe and understand and then things so far beyond us and possibly beyond our perception that there is no other word than arrogant to describe anyone who claims to say they’re correct over another. I speak on both chronically online atheists and chronically in pulpit theists. It’s fun to theorize and discuss, but when it comes to putting someone else down because their view of what’s possible is different from yours, that’s cringe.
Sure it seems probable to believe there isn’t some creator, but there’s literally no possible way to know. If some entity or entities capable of creating the universe existed, I’d assume they’d also have the power to just not be noticed. There’s just no way of knowing, which makes our purpose as you said, individual to those around us and ourselves.
We can know that certain gods are false simply because they are logically incoherent, but sure, the non falsifiable concepts are simply that, non falsifiable. I’m atheist because I don’t believe in a god, not necessarily because I believe any specific god doesn’t exist.
I’m with you that putting others down for their beliefs is cringy, but we shouldn’t pretend that having a belief in a god without evidence to back it up is reasonable. There absolutely is a way to know a creator exists, and if they’re powerful enough to create the universe, they know exactly how to demonstrate that.
I don’t think it needs to be reasonable if it gives them comfort in life and i don’t pretend it is. I just think they’re allowed the right to have that thought and defend it if they choose.
But I don’t think it’s guaranteed to think a creator would want to be known. Maybe the concept of god had motive to stay unnoticed. We’d never know. The mystery is the fun, not the moral superioriterino.
There are more than 10,000 stars for every grain of sand on earth… If only 0.00000001% had a habitable planet, there are still millions of habitable planets in the universe. Is earth rare? Yes, but to say that proves the god of the bible is a real entity, is more than a ridiculous statement.
Furthermore, once I learned about the miller-urey experiment where it was shown that amino acids (building blocks of proteins and DNA/RNA) can be spontaneously created by simple gasses like methane, ammonia, and Hydrogen, it was all over for the thought of an intelligent creator.
You might enjoy a collection of essays of the lectures of Carl Sagan called the Varieties of Scientific Experiences. He had one on the organic universe. Where he talked about how absurdly common organic compounds are in our solar system, had a little mention of the first time cyanide was discovered on a comet. I am not sure if this is currently accepted or just at the time of writing but he also argued that those compounds formed when the solar system was still just a rotating disc of gas and dust.
Life “choose” to use what was common, and it is common because the stuff life has access to was stuff that was less likely to decay. It is survivorship bias.
Agreed on the thrust of your comment but i also saw that a few changes to the nature of earth and everything changes. For example, a bit bigger and we could not use a rocket to leave orbit as it would exceed the power ratios. A bit closer to the sun etc.
And the fact that it took 4bn years.
The raw maths produces alot of planets but they still have to be Goldilocks
We couldn’t use a chemical rocket correct. A bit bigger meaning about 6x the size of earth by mass if I remember that article correctly. Nuclear rockets would be all we have, you know that tech we looked into and didn’t pursue over 60 years ago. Unless of course we really only accepted rockets instead of using plain ballistics and orbital machines. I don’t know why you think it matters to some god that we go into space, nothing in the holy writings of humanity indicates that. Also if that was the goal I doubt NASA would have been stuck in LEO for 52 years and counting.
You are right you need a lot of things to go right to get us. Here is another fun fact. Take a deck of cards and shuffle them. The odds of that combination is 1 out of 52!, which is about 1.24e-66%. Put another way, imagine a 1% of something happening, now imagine some event is a 10 million billion billion billion billion billion billion as likely as that happening, that number is the odds of that particular deck existing. And yet a particular arrangement happens thousands of times a minute.
Just because any given outcome is unlikely doesn’t mean no outcome is possible.
Sounds like confirmation bias. Agnosticism is probably the most reasonable take you can live by. If there’s a universe so unimaginably big, how is it impossible to think there could be an entity so unimaginably beyond our existence. As we are to bacteria, say.
I think the vastness of the universe makes it even less likely for a creator being, due to the pointlessness of it all. If there was a god they could make our galaxy work without a universe to support it, and we wouldve never been the wiser.
It is more likely that natural forces due to physics and chemistry created the universe, the galaxys, our planet, and us. There is most likely some constant expansion and contraction that repeats, which continues the cycle of death and rebirth over and over again forever. There is no beginning and there is no end, there is no purpose except for the purpose you make for yourself and your loved ones.
It’s arrogance to think you’re even on the right path of anything imo. Personally why agnosticism is the only logical outcome. There’s things we can observe and understand and then things so far beyond us and possibly beyond our perception that there is no other word than arrogant to describe anyone who claims to say they’re correct over another. I speak on both chronically online atheists and chronically in pulpit theists. It’s fun to theorize and discuss, but when it comes to putting someone else down because their view of what’s possible is different from yours, that’s cringe.
Sure it seems probable to believe there isn’t some creator, but there’s literally no possible way to know. If some entity or entities capable of creating the universe existed, I’d assume they’d also have the power to just not be noticed. There’s just no way of knowing, which makes our purpose as you said, individual to those around us and ourselves.
We can know that certain gods are false simply because they are logically incoherent, but sure, the non falsifiable concepts are simply that, non falsifiable. I’m atheist because I don’t believe in a god, not necessarily because I believe any specific god doesn’t exist.
I’m with you that putting others down for their beliefs is cringy, but we shouldn’t pretend that having a belief in a god without evidence to back it up is reasonable. There absolutely is a way to know a creator exists, and if they’re powerful enough to create the universe, they know exactly how to demonstrate that.
I don’t think it needs to be reasonable if it gives them comfort in life and i don’t pretend it is. I just think they’re allowed the right to have that thought and defend it if they choose.
But I don’t think it’s guaranteed to think a creator would want to be known. Maybe the concept of god had motive to stay unnoticed. We’d never know. The mystery is the fun, not the moral superioriterino.
I agree in a way. We really can’t rule out a being superior to us so far ahead that god is what we should call it.
Now when someone blows up a building with a backpack bomb or criminalizes birth control do you think that their definition of God is that one?
Arguing these hypotheticals is fun but it is academic.