Atheists who attack Christianity

You are having diffculty reading. I take the position that if you cannot prove god, he does not exist. Period. Since noone can prove him to me emprically, then he does not exist. thus the problems is not my ability or inability to prove a negative, its the utter lack of ability to prove a positive.

Of course the flip side of the coin is that from a spiritual standpoint, as a buddhist, there is no room for a trancscendent, incomprehensible overmind. The very existence of god as a seperate entitiy with his own sense of "I" fails in a religion where the sense of "I" is an illusion. If I do not turly exist, except by illusion, then god cannot truly exist.

Thus when I see what IS, god is not part of the equation. Of course ration science at the quantum level dovetails much nice with my zen dichotomy than it does with some high minded deity.

NNnnnnnooo, wrong again.

It sets a point at which the "debate" can end - see, there is no "debate". It's /over/. Kitzmiller vs Dover was the death knell. There is no debate in biology over whether evolution occurs, only academic debates over the mechanism by which it occurs. There is no debate in academia over the age of the planet, nor the origin of species, or that there might have been a deity - YOU, and people like you - people for whom you are shilling, people who Lie for Jesus - have made a very loud and very big stink because you are not getting your selfish way with the government of the United States. Separation of church and state means just that. Failing to respect an establishment of religion means just that. Freedom of religion - including freedom from religion - means just that. We're not debating this. We know what's happening, what the law is, what's going on in biology, science, physics, philosophy.

YOU are the one who's trolling (and yes, I read the bit where you admitted that you post things just to get responses) a debunked modern-day mythological interpretation of a slanderous strawman that was generated by Southern Baptist bigots and hurled in a courtroom in 1925. You should not be surprised that people speak out to correct your misleading troll posts, when that is what you expect.

When you stop trolling Creationist propaganda - and the only time I've ever seen people like you stop trolling Creationist propaganda was when they actually realised that they've been lying to others the entire time, pushing misleading propaganda as if it were authoritative ... the only time I've ever seen people like you /stop/ is when they actually realise that one does not score Loyalty Points with one's deity for spreading massive amounts of falsehood and falsely portraying themselves as an expert in a field in which they are sorely unqualified - when they finally feel /shame/.

It was a statement, made from experience, to the effect that no, I am not going to stop countering your Creationist propaganda, and you won't stop spreading it because you have no shame.

One, and yet a single locus can be a proper focus for a combination of probabilites. Thus in a galaxy with trillions of stars, how many potenital combingations of circumstance happen over billions of years? Even if there is only one earth like planet in this galaxy (not likely-but try it) there are Billions of galaxies, which means there must be billions of earths.

The unknons his how common in the galaxy are the conditions that create life..at this point we don't know. But certainly because they happened here, they are replicable in other places.

No I would not expect thoeries to agree, but part of science is that sometimes you don't know stuff, sometimes the puzzle has missing peices, and we don't neeed to go to god like sone cosmic zap a gap, to fill in the empty parts every time science can't explain something.

If you lived in the 14th century you wouldn't have believed it possible the Earth revolved around the sun, because it couldn't be proven. The same with the flat Earth. No proof, no believe.

What we know today is a small portion of what really is.

If no one believed it possible, then how is it we know better today?

You realize that will never happen, right?

Some people believed the Earth revolved around the Sun, and believed the Earth is round. But it wasn't those people who refuse to entertain a possibility if it hasn't been proven yet.

For a guy who refuses to entertain the possibility of a God because it can't be proven, you jump leaps and bounds in faith to suggest there are other Earth-like planets when you can't prove it to be so.

Actually proofs of the round earth date to well before christ, and the helio-centric universe was also not an unknown concept to the greeks. By and large the 14th century represents the starting point of re-emergence from an era of ignorance and superstion in the maintiand in large part by the christian church. It is just cuch a dark age we are in danger of falling into again as the christian assault on five hundred years of reason renews itself.

Pretty much.

Not having a problem reading. I understand your position, I simply disagree with it.

Why is that so common a mistake around these parts?

Question, Jake: Are you familiar with the works of Rene Descartes?

Except both observation and model have demonstrated the existence of Earth-like planets in the universe.

When were you going to stop holding forth strong opinions about things you don't understand? Oh, yes. When you feel shame.

Mathematics suggests that there would be others. Prove? No. Suggest, yes.

The point stands regardless of the date. Let's say 8000BC, you still would reject anything that had yet to be discovered.

Ah but science and and observation support my inference about other earth like planets. It is specualtion and inference drawn from a firm basis in science and observation. It might be wrong, but it has a solid foundation.

To beleive in god and psecualte about his existence lacks any such foundation. It requires, as Kierkegaard noted, a leap of faith, in the face of all reason.

Let me put it this way: I cannot prove to you that it did not snow somewhere in palmsprings yesterday. I did not, obviously see every part of palm springs for ever second of the day. Yet I can derive a categorical denial of the snow, based on the firm foundation and observations of what is required for snow and what the weather conditions were in palm springs.

It is the same with other planets, I can observe the stars, I can base my inference on all of what astroonomy, physics and astrophisics, and astrobiology doees know about the universe, and I can infer that other earth like planets can exists.

god, alas is not supported by observable evidence.

Indeed, Suggests. I can freely admit the possibility there are no other earth like planets any where else in the universe. that still does not mean there is a god.

Oh? and how do you know? I might be ther person who discoveres what I don't know.

If we knew there was 1 Earth per galaxy math might help. But since we only know of one Earth, math can't even suggest there are more.

Of course, and the breadth of philospohical thought that has occurred in the three hundred years following him.

Wow.

I'm just stunned at the utter lack of understanding of probability mathmatics that you just displayed.

Yeah, but I have a soft spot for Descartes. It takes a certain mad brilliance to look at the world and realise, "The only thing I can prove is that I exist, and not even in the form I suspect I exist in, and I can never even prove that to anyone else."

Wrong.

Statistics /demands/ that there be other earth-like planets. Not 'suggest', /demands/.

Now, what - in the interests of setting a universe of discourse (A term you probably don't know the meaning of, so go Wikipedia it) - what /exactly/ is /your/ definition of "Earth-like planet"? What are your precise parameters?

Because astrologers have found - observed through telescopes - Earth-like planets, for /their/ and /my/ definition of "earth-like". I want to see how closely /your/ definition compares to that of the professionals.

Well, not quite. Remember, there is always the one-million-penny-flips theory. No matter how great the odds, there is always the infentesimally small chance that stastical theory has gone utterly haywire at some point.

Of course it can..just breath the earth down inot potential combinations of elelemts on the periodic table..or better break it down it combinations of commonly occuring molecules, then calculate the number of scuh molecules per star, or limit it even to say G classs stars, then calcutlate the number of observable g-class starts and infer the proabaility of g-class stars as a realtive fucntion to the total number of stars.

The calculate the total number of g-class stars in a galaxy based on mathematical models, and multipy that by the derived number of galaxies. You get a huge number.

*awaits a resounding ignore of the challenge, a Hovindesque draconian over-specification down to the shape of the land masses and the formulation of concrete on said planet, or a feeble attempt to claim he knows better about statistics*