Why do atheists consider the fine tuning of the universe and the formation of life and sentient beings a big...

Why do atheists consider the fine tuning of the universe and the formation of life and sentient beings a big coincidence, but the fact that chimps and humans share 94% of their DNA is not a coincidence?

Other urls found in this thread:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PETPOPE.HTM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

atheism doesn't rule out the possibility that we were placed here

it just rejects the completely fucking retarded notion that a Jewish wizard commanded everyone to cut off the tips of their dicks so they wouldn't get stabbed by a lizard in a fire pit.

Because atheist are logically inconsistent

The anthropic principle states we exist because the slow adaptation life took to live in it. We wouldn't be around to notice a universe inhospitable to our type of organisms.

Because atheism isn't scientific and is inconsistent.

You're not very smart are you?

Very true.

>very slight change
>couldn't be life
>but it's all ok anyway

I don't have enough faith to believe this nonsense.

But talking snakes, that's TOTALLY real. Honest.

>I take texts literal that even the ancients didn't
Is being retarded part of your plan?

It's all bullshit to me sport.

because there's actual evidence of common descent and no evidence for creation

>I pick parts that i like but ignore everything i don't like.

Sup Forums literally worshipping an jew shitskin from some desert tribe 2000 years ago.

That doesn't make you any smarter. Taking something literal that isn't supposed to be, even if you deny it, doesn't make you any smarter.

>implying the two can't go together
Also define "creation" here.

Do you realize you interpret it the exact same way creationists do? Interesting that you have that in common with them

All the supernatural events from the bible is obviously metaphores.

But that there is a magical space-wizard and anafterlife is totally legit. duh.

Why do you cut the skin off a baby boy's penis mere minutes after he's born?

Well, to be clear, the Big Bang was seen entirely as a coincidence, but it's really hard to say the same for the formation of life itself.
Our planet was just in the right distance away from our sun for life to thrive in, so an ecosystem of living things was bound to happen.

Not everything is literal. Don't be retarded.

>genetic fallacy

>all
No

>space-wizard
Acting retarded ironically still means you're acting retarded.

Who said I was trying to be "smarter"? I simply don't buy into anything written(metaphor or not) in the desert trilogy.

>1 post by this ID

Anyway, from all of the planets we've observed, and from all the life we've NOT found, I think it's safe to say the universe is NOT fine-tuned, at least as far as life is concerned. So it's a "coincidence" that this particular planet developed to a state that supported life, but with all the billions of others out there, there are likely others, coincidence is relative at that scale.

Anything?
Well done, you've rejected everything so much out of reactionary views, you now reject even things that have evidence to support them including history; you're officially too stupid to be taken seriously.

How do you get all that from a simple rejection of mythology? You know exactly dick about me or what i believe or why. I think you just want to spew insults. Come back and post AFTER you turn 18.

I don't understand your opposition to the fact a slight change would either be selected against during evolution or that there would be no one to notice such an unstable environment.

It is simple selection bias.

>a big coincidence
I dont think you understand.
In an infinite universe there are bound to be many planets that are hospitable to life. The fact that you or any life in general is present in it is not a councidence but an inevitability. Try to look at it from a more mathematical point of view.

Atheism is only a lack of belief in a god/gods. It makes no other claim.

Explain from an atheistic standpoint why that is wrong.

How do you know its not supposed to be taken literal?

>people fell for this

I'm just going to assume you were countertrolling. Nice job tough you glorious britbong

Multiple universes answers the fine tuning argument.

The sheer number of planets in this universe alone make it statistically impossible for life not to arise on at least some of them.

Sentience arose because it's massively advantageous.

You only find evolution dubious because you're in a cult which conditioned you to view it that way.

"anything written". That's how.
You didn't just deny mythology. You denied anything written.

>after you turn 18
I wish I was that young again ;_;

Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe.

No shit, and theism is the belief that it there is. It makes no other claim.

Because I'm not intellectually stunted and I've actually looked at the stuff.

Genesis has TWO creation stories side-by-side. It's also a polemical version of polytheistic creation stories. The language used uses poetic language and more. It's not my fault if most atheist and prots aren't read on the subject.

Everyone reply to this question tho-

What happened before the "Big Bang" did nothing happen for an eternity? I can't figure this one out, because if nothing happened for an eternity, then how do we perceive time (seconds hours minutes)? Wouldn't we still be stuck in the "nothing happening stage?

Ignore anything about dessert wizards or gay apostles or any of that shit

What point are you even trying to make?

Just state your opinion instead of asking some shitty, vague, and nonsensical question.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Why ask a stupid question instead of being honest?

Time wasn't even a thing before the Big Bang.
You can't really have an eternity without time.

>Believes in multiple universes without any evidence

Okay.

>life not to arise

How does life arise in the first place? Please explain how dead material comes to life and gains sentience

>Sentience arose because it's massively advantageous.

Makes absolutely no fucking sense. Having wings and a tail is massively advantageous yet humans have neither. Being bacteria is also more advantageous to being a human, yet here we are.

>You only find evolution dubious because you're in a cult which conditioned you to view it that way.

The exact same thing can be said to you.

Short answer; nobody knows
Long answer; literally nobody knows

Maybe it was timelines or something or just because physics.

So its not all literal as you say, so then the question is what should you take literally? Given, as far as I know no one talks directly to higher beings, then much of any holy text is subjective and up to interpretation. Given that much of the holy texts are unfortunately so ambiguous it then leads to what one could consider the possibility that perhaps none of it is true or that it all may be based on the subjective experiences of others. Thus any text that is neither reliable nor definitive is largely meaningless. Faith does not make up for this, as this only leads more subjectivity.

Now some of you may argue that because these texts and ideas have existed for centuries they must be true. Yet none of you would be foolish enough to say that any of these texts have not been altered, translated, or reinterpreted over the centuries. As such, the things you may say are metaphors today may in fact have been considered literal for centuries. Thus the whole system becomes recursive and ultimately meaningless beyond perhaps its historical and philosophical value. Whereas a modern, scientific interpretation of the universe is fairly stable, in that each idea will build upon the last, will self correct, or be redefined to ensure to take into account complexity.

Put simply when any person considers the sheer scale of both time, the nature and complexity of matter and energy, and of space itself it becomes very easy to consider quite a few things as being possible. Meaning given that matter behaves in a complex manner and given that some of it can aggregate and interact with matter of different features, it is then understood and shown that new structure can be created. Life on all matter in certainly the strangest and most fragile, given it require particular conditions, seems anomalous and impossible, yet nature seems to just work that way considering how different the bodies of our solar system are. Yet none of it requires intervention or design.

How long did the chemical and physical process take place prior to the Big Bang for it to even happen? Seconds? Hours?

Funny how atheists throw out science and logic when trying to explain The Big Bang.

>You're not very smart are you?
nah that'd be you, limey cunt

Well thats fine if you believe it, nowhere in there states to take specific things literally or not. Weird that an omnipotent/omniscient god didnt know that nobody would agree regarding the stances the book takes.

Nothing happened. Before the Big Bang, there was no concept of time or matter or anything like that.

Time is simply a construct human beings use to understand the flow of consciousness. Everything on a quantum level has already happened.

If you really want to understand it, either be really good at math and delve into quantum physics or find a friend who is good at it and can explain it (this is my situation, sadly).

You'll have to get into really interesting concepts like the definition of time, entropy, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, and uncertainty principle.

Here's a secret: eternal life doesn't exist. Your consciousness doesn't float off somewhere to meet your family and friends after you die. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner you can stop being a cuck.

>what should you take literally?
That's why there's a Church.

>no one talks directly to higher beings
That wouldn't make a difference, though, regardless of whether it's true or not.

>the rest
God of the gaps.

t. BMI 58

>nowhere in there states
Stop right there. That's nonsensical.
Also people don't tend to take poetry literally.

>"fine tuning of the universe"
Kill yourself

Prove it.

>God creates all life
>copy pastes data so bananas are like 50% the same as humans

Matter did not exist before the big bang, therefore, chemical and physical processes could not take place.

If the "Big Bang" happened 13 billion years ago, then what was gong on 14 billion years ago? I'm just having a hard time understanding time not existing, while simultaneously allowing the universe to exist for eternity after the "Big Bang".

>No shit, and theism is the belief that it there is. It makes no other claim.

Are you saying there arent any claims made by god in that book that followers should believe?

So it just came into existence from literally nowhere? I thought atheists didn't believe in magic.

You do realise that a creator makes more sense than your explanation, right?

I legitimately don't see an issue here.

Religion =/= theism
Theistic religions =/= theism

Just saying "atheism is lack of belief" means nothing. Just showing you that it's not of interest.

>Stop right there. That's nonsensical.
>Also people don't tend to take poetry literally.

How is this nonsensical? If you believe in this god, and yoj believe the bible is the word of god, it logically follows that you are going to follow his word. This isnt the same as poetry, you are tapdancing far too early in this thread.

Way to completely dodge the question. I suppose id be dishonest too if i believed that nonsense.

>magic
?

I didn't even offer an explanation. If you understand so well why quantum physics and the Big Bang are false, please go ahead and post your thesis with mathematical proofs.

Because Genesis is poetic. If you even look at some of the basic Hebrew words throughout the Genesis creation stories you can see that.

I'm not tapdancing, you're just reading it wrong.

"dodge the question"
Not at all. You asked about theism.
You can't talk about theism as one homogeneous movement.

That isn't the sort of logic that can explain it though.
Like I said, time didn't exist before the Big Bang; The very concept of seconds and hours only came into existence at that precise moment.

In that sense, there's really no such thing as 14 billion years ago.
Also, in the context of the future universe, it's still debated in the scientific community whether or not the universe will 'exist' for eternity.
There's a popular theory involving something called 'heat death', where the universe can no longer sustain processes that increase entropy (such as life and computation) because it's already at its highest point there.
The universe technically would exist at that point, but life and everything as we know it would be gone forever.

You literally said there was no matter before the Big Bang but then it suddenly existed with no chemical process involved. That is literally worse than magic but at least with magic you have a magician, and the fact that you can't understand how nonsensical you sound just proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's a good question, but given how we now understand time and space, it's more accurate to say that there was not a 14 billion years ago- the concept is meaningless.
Time itself started 13.7 billion years ago, as well as space.

God created himself, therefore without god there could be no universe.
Checkmate.

Genesis isnt the whole bible, even if you were right which you cant know.

If your god says something is good, do you disagree with him?

It ain't all that fine tuned. Its all still a big messy pile of random shit with all sorts of problems.

That's because space and time began with the Big Bang. So if there's no space and time there can be no matter. Now how did the Big Bang happened and why? That's a question for philosophy.

We were still talking about Genesis.

>you were right which you cant know.
What do you mean?

>If your god says something is good, do you disagree with him?
Objective > subjective

>coincidence
events of low probability are bound to happen in the universe since it's so big and possibly infinite. """coincidence""" which lead to life probably occurred in countless planets in maybe even in our galaxy and beyond.
As for DNA question, you clearly lack the understanding of theory of evolution. Educate yourself pleb.

>I don't have enough faith to believe this nonsense.
but you have enough faith to believe in a grandpa sky god who sends you to a sauna if you act bad?

also, Czeched

FPBP

Sentience isn't that advantageous. Ants and other insects outnumber humans in any scale. We just really enjoy it.

Also if the universe could be so incredibly unstable that not even stars would form, the life isn't eventual in all possible worlds without understanding what fixes the stability of universal constants. That doesn't require a sky daddy but exo-universal knowledge.

Also multiple universes isn't necessary due to the weak anthropic principle stating we wouldn't be around to notice an inhospitable universe.

If those numbers were different we would have adapted to it evolutionarily or not exist to notice an unstable universe inhospitable to complex structures.

>the fact that you can't understand how nonsensical you sound just proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Nice projecting there.

I never claimed to have a deep or even basic understanding of quantum physics. I know what I don't know. But I do know somebody who is highly skilled in the area and he offered me a non-mathematical explanation of the Big Bang and quantum physics in general and I talk to him regularly. He has shown me mathematical proofs and obviously has a grasp of understanding on the issue, therefore I trust him.

Since you apparently have such a depth of knowledge in the subject, please post your thesis with mathematical proofs disproving the Big Bang and quantum physics. Don't dodge this statement in your next post, either.

>That's why there's a Church.
Catholicism is a fraud

I like how the religious fag keeps holding on his fairy tell to explain what we can't know

>Hi I'm faggot OP and I insult everyone who I am incapable of providing a coherent answer to!

>grandpa sky god
>sauna
Strawmen don't help.

I have enough faith to believe in God because I see evidence for God's existence. It's logically and rationally evidenced.

Czeched back btw.

[citation needed]

t. Pastor Jim's Bible-Believing Southern Baptist Reform Apostolic Church of God in Christ Prophecy, established 1988

You seriously just cant answer the questions. This should be an indicator to you.

We arent talking only about genesis, take off your tapdance shoes please.

I said you cant know if it is literal or not. If you believe its poetry, good. Youre one step closer to not believing the bible.

Alright last post before I ditch this thread.

I'm pretty much an atheist but I kind of was hoping that the universe was cyclical so that I could come back and experience life again.

I just feel that
( "no time" )-->( 80 years of consciousness)-->(heat death of the universe for eternity) seems rather grim. Possibly correct, but grim.

I see you kinda kicking responses back and forth that are at least close to equal to what you're responding to for everybody except

I can't answer "questions" because I'm not good at reading autism and fedora-tipping non-questions.

Ask the questions clearly and I can follow what you're asking and when you're not just being an edgy retard.

>I said you cant know if it is literal or not
I already explained this. That's why there is a Church.

That is ALSO why there is a Church tradition and why priests are supposed to be educated on these matters.

I responded.
I see no reason to believe it.

Here:

For the universe to exist as it does requires that hydrogen be converted to helium in a precise but comparatively stately manner—specifically, in a way that converts seven one-thousandths of its mass to energy. Lower that value very slightly—from 0.007 percent to 0.006 percent, say—and no transformation could take place: the universe would consist of hydrogen and nothing else. Raise the value very slightly—to 0.008 percent—and bonding would be so wildly prolific that the hydrogen would long since have been exhausted. In either case, with the slightest tweaking of the numbers the universe as we know and need it would not be here.
- Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything

I kinda have the idea that when heat death happens this membrane of existence has lost all momentum and will kind of just float back into another membrane causing another big bang.

The first Christians did not have a "Pope". Nor did the Old Testament believing Hebrews (not jews) before them.

Mat. 16:18: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Petros], and upon this rock [Petra] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter was called only a stone, but Jesus said He would build His Church (ekklesia) on Petra, which is a mass of stone. And Peter continues this analogy in his own epistle at 2:5.

And then Matthew 16:19 was also said to the body of Christ in general at Matthew 18:18.

I don't understand theists arguing the points their parents raised them with as infallible. I believe in things that yield results. Science has claims, so does religion. The Manhattan project, the fact I can talk to you on a computer right now instantaneously. One party delivers, one doesn't. And the absolute bottom line, if I give you a claim then at some point ask for money with no results. If that was a company you wouldn't invest in it would you? It isn't being disloyal to your family and their friends its questioning bullshit. You owe zero loyalty to people that take advantage of you.

The Pope is analogous to the High Priest. Peter was the cornerstone, the rock, of the Church.

>ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PETPOPE.HTM

Follow the conversation, dummy.

There is a church that does that, along with a billion more arguing against each other.

I wonder why

If life had a common source, then all subsequent life would retain a great deal of the original DNA.

Because Prots are illegitimate and don't follow the succession.

It's one of the Orthodox Church or Catholics. Nothing else.

Hebrews 2:17-18, 3:1, 4:14-15.
>Peter was the cornerstone, the rock, of the Church.
"Petros" is stone. And "Petra" is a mass of rock. And Peter continued this analogy at 2:5 of his epistle. Which I just said

And Eph. 2:20 says Christ is the cornerstone of the Church

And the rest of them? Not to mention, people have different beliefs regarding the bible.

>being created by a super intelligent being called "God" is ridiculous!
>being created by a super intelligent being called "alien" is plausible!

And a euphoric tip of the fedora to you as well, m'sir.

You're playing games.
Christ is the Cornerstone of the Church, yes. Christ is the very foundation of the Church. Christ built the Church on Peter, though.

Paul kept it together.

Waste of time tbqh. When you take away its traditions and knowledge you end up with weird things like snake charmers.

>Pretending a god exists
>pretending other god believers dont

I think we are done here. Lmao.

Not an argument.

I know. Im just done with you tapdancing and being overall dishonest. I am just glad you dont agree with gods word.

Atheism has a stance on aliens? I didnt get the memo.

If they took me off their mailing list again....

>not an argument

Not and argument.

>Christ built the Church on Peter, though.
But Peter was just one stone. The Greek for Petros is stone, while Petra is a mass of rock. And Peter himself also called the followers of Christ stones

>tapdancing
There's that word again. I've tapdanced around nothing that you've asked, as far as I know. I don't know how much simpler I can make things.

>dishonest
I've been completely honest. It's not my problem if you're wrong.

>don't agree with gods word
I'm not a literalist. That doesn't mean I don't agree.

Shouldn't you be out ruining Europe?

Petra is feminine because ekklesia is feminine.
Petros is masculine because Peter is male.

And that's because the people, too, are stones in the church. It doesn't change the fact that Peter is the stone Christ built the Church on.

>Petra is feminine because ekklesia is feminine.
Pretty sure that is not how that works. Petros and Petra are not a feminine and masculine version of the same thing. Petros is a stone, and Petra is a mass of rock.

But petra means "stone", "rock formation", etc.

Petra = feminine
Petros = masculine
Ekklesia = feminine

AFAIK you can't mix genders in Greek like that.

I'll check it out more, though, and see what I can find out.

>Now how did the Big Bang happened and why? That's a question for philosophy

No, it isn't. That's very much a question for science.

>coincidences
Are you pretending to not understand evolution or what

It's not a coincidence as much as it is a probability. You have to consider the billions upon billions of dead planets that never could have life. Think of them as billions and trillions of failed attempts, and every so often, very rarely, you get a planet like earth. In the rare case such as ours, life was able to sustain itself on our planet.

Not a coincidence. You are the puddle thinking the ground that you inhabit is shaped perfectly (coincidentally) to the form you have taken on the earth, without realizing that you are simply water filling a void.

DNA was ultra simplistic back when our original source existed. It branched out into our complex DNA that we have today. Try harder kiddo.

fpbp

> literally no argument

>DNA was ultra simplistic