Why do atheists have no problem with believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial life, not not the possibility of a being that created the universe?
I know they'll say it all boils down to "logic" (a trillion planets *must* contain life if we're going by the law of averages), yet the very existence of the universe itself coming into being out of nothing is more logical to them than being a deliberate creation of a being powerful enough to bring the matter into existence.
Other urls found in this thread:
theguardian.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
If god had to create us then who created god
...
>Baby's first philosophical question
No-one created God. If you can't wrap your head around the concept of "eternal and uncreated" then you shouldn't really be discussing theology.
Maybe the universe is eternal and uncreated.
That is the most funny thing , have no evidence for aliens belief in it anyway, have no evidence for god , dont belief in it
>hur dur me logical
we don't know where the universe came from originally but jumping to i dunno therefore god lol is retarded
but we do know given the right conditions life can evolve on a planet (example earth) so what's stopping it from happening on another earth like planet?
>philosophy relies on a stupid religious metaphor deal with it
your philosophy is fucking weak faggot
I thought most atheists deny the possibility. Ask /sci/ and they'll tell you to fuck off to /x/.
In any case atheists are really pseudoskeptics - they only care about round trip fallacies.
We just reject your idea of god is all, too many plot holes, like anime
Baby's first unanswerable question that BTFOs religion, you mean.
Gonna go right ahead and drop Flying Spaghetti Monster into this convo because it's still relevant.
The idea that life exists outside of Earth doesn't violate the basic laws of identity--the governing principle of the universe. It doesn't take "faith" to entertain the possibility, since it's happened in one place we know already, and there's nothing to demonstrate that it can't happen elsewhere.
The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient Creator runs totally contrary to the law of identity and very basic laws about the universe must be discarded in order to believe in such a being.
For example, the universe is "everything that exists." In order for there to have been a Creator, it must have been part of some pre-existing form of "existence," meaning the universe already existed before the Creator. In order to believe in a supreme Creator, you must totally invent, on mystical and superstitious grounds, a way for something to "exist" without there being a place or framework in which it can exist in the first place. Contradiction. Law of Identity violated.
The most we can say about the universe is that "it exists." The Greeks believed that the universe always existed, and always will, since it makes no sense for there to be a "beginning" or an "end" to existence itself. This is also one of the reasons that the Big Bang Theory is probably incorrect, at least insofar as it attempts to explain the origins of the universe, and that other phenomenon are responsible for things like red shift and CBR.
With things like simulation theory, holographic universe, electric universe, etc... They're starting to come around to the concept, albeit with their own language for the phenomena, but it's starting to swing full circle.
Extra-terrestrial life probably does exist, and God most likely does not exist.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Plot twist: God is an alien
If you can't wrap your head around the concept of "eternal and uncreated" then you shouldn't really be talking about the universe coming from nothing
The universe -- everything that exists -- couldn't have "come from nothing." It never "began" in the first place, and will never cease to exist. It makes no sense to talk about the beginning and end of existence.
See:
Oh no I agree with you friend I suppose I just worded that poorly.
Of course it's more logical, because humans try to understand things, your worldview does not attempt to understand anything. You say that some being created the matter, but that being had to be created with something too. So this leaves us with the unanswerable question of what created this mysterious being that we know nothing about, instead of working on understanding how the basic elements of the universe came into existence which is actually a realistic goal that people can work towards
> couldn't have "come from nothing."
citation needed
> It never "began" in the first place, and will never cease to exist
citation needed
> It makes no sense to talk about the beginning and end of existence
both of these are deeply intertwined with the concept of a god, especially an Abrahamic god
Oh great...another fucking ignorant religious post questioning matters of the universe and how the enlightened ones simply "cannot explain gosh"
Give me a fucking break...Gosh isn't real. It's a fairy tale just like Santa or the Easter man. The sooner you realize the Universe was created from sub atomic particles clashing in a dance of destruction, the sooner you can grow the fuck up and live life.
Logic tells us that a man in the sky created nothing lest he proves he did so...you STUPID fucking theists need to get that through your thick yet empty skulls...
I've warned you..don't make me have to inform you anymore than I already have...
You see, believing in a possibility of aliens does not interfere with scientific research nor does it make people go to kill unbelievers.
It might benefit you to read up on scientific literature from the last 200 years.
Everything we have ever observed about the universe shows that events have causes, which themselves must be part of existence. In order for a "cause" to produce an "effect," there must be a framework in which the cause exists in the first place--that is, a universe.
Given this, it makes no sense to discuss a "beginning" of existence, since any beginning cause would have to *exist* in order for the effect to take place. The same argument holds true for an "end."
This is part of the law of identity. And the outcome of this is that it makes no sense to think of the universe as ever having "come into existence."
>both of these are deeply intertwined with the concept of a god, especially an Abrahamic god
Indeed, and the fact that the idea of an Abrahamic God runs totally contrary to everything else we know about the universe is a pretty good reason to discount the notion.
We have a reasonably good idea and a lot of supporting evidence on how you can get life from inorganic mater.
We have no good ideas and zero evidence of how a god can magic up a cup of coffee let alone a whole universe.
False equivalence
>If you can't wrap your head around the concept of "eternal and uncreated" then you shouldn't really be discussing theology.
Try applying that concept to the universe you morron.
Why must there have been nothing, rather than something, at the beginning?
I'm saying there *was* no beginning. If there was "something," then it wasn't the beginning of existence.
We don't need the christian god to explain anything about our universe and there is a telling lack of evidence for his existence.
You are a mass of air, water and earth that is powered by the sun. You were created, built and driven by a complex acid molecule that has been changing and jumping from living vehicle to living vehicle for 4 billion years.
The acid in your body contains some of the original matter from the first life.
Isn't that more fascinating and awesome than some faggot ancient palestinian book?
ah I conflated your post with another's, my mistake.
Reminds me of this from Stephen Hawking:
"The issue of the beginning of time is a bit like the issue of the edge of the world. When people thought the world was flat, one might have wondered whether the sea poured over its edge. This has been tested experimentally: One can go around the world and not fall off. The problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time, however, seemed to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to have been someone (i.e., God) to set the trains going. Although Einstein’s general theory of relativity unified time and space as space-time and involved a certain mixing of space and time, time was still different from space, and either had a beginning and an end or else went on forever. However, once we add the effects of quantum theory to the theory of The Grand Design relativity, in extreme cases warpage can occur to such a great extent that time behaves like another dimension of space.
"In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics. If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time?" (cont)
"The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. In an analogous manner, when one combines the general theory of relativity with quantum theory, the question of what happened before the beginning of the universe is rendered meaningless. This idea that histories should be closed
surfaces without boundary is called the no-boundary condition."
I've wondered about this for most of my life. You have to be pretty stupid to think there's no evidence that elements of the universe can become conscious and then create things. Then they extrapolate their stupid worldview to *outside* of the universe where pretty much all bets are off? Give me a fucking break.
The universe contains a high degree of self-similarity at some pretty fundamental levels. We evolved, created computers, and within a few decades are frantically attempting to model both our brains and reality itself inside of computers. I can't don't understand why this doesn't torpedo hard atheism in the mind of even the dumbest most euphoric asshole. I really don't.
>Extra-terrestrial life does not exist, and God most likely does exist.
>This isn't a difficult concept.
Who says it came from nothing? Why couldn't the universe just have always existed?
>No-one created X. If you can't wrap your head around the concept of "eternal and uncreated" then you shouldn't really be discussing X.
What an amazing argument.
How can you be so sure that no one created God.
If you only say that because you've read it in a book where someone appealed to their authority claiming that it is so and there's no point to question it... there's a big problem.
If you claim it was trough spiritual revelation then again it's a big problem.
Because christcucks are small minded morons who don't understand the science they're criticizing even at a base level. Probably for the same reason they base their lives around ancient myths, they're fucking stupid.
>Why do atheists have no problem with believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial life, not not the possibility of a being that created the universe?
Because they are not equivalent. We have plenty of evidence of life in the universe, none for such a creator self-aware being.
You mean that rosswell alien video?
Yet you can't wrap your brain around the concept of the universe being self evident and not needing a creator.
Kill yourself and meet your maker faggot.
>no problem with believing in the possibility of extraterrestrial life,
The universe is just too fucking big to be empty.
>the possibility of a being that created the universe?
I have no idea about THE MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE but if there is such being it would be strange for him to care so much about Earth and to hate fags.
I'm pretty sure that the being that created the universe doesn't give a fuck about you touching yourself at night.
Life on earth might be a random byproduct of a chemical reaction he never ever cared about
>have no evidence for aliens
The evidence is trillions of rocks floating through the universe. If you actually believe that this is the only warm rock floating through the universe with liquid water and an atmosphere protecting us from ultraviolet radiation you are a retard.
Maybe God is the universe, you fucking dolt.
You have no scientific explanation for vigor, or the will to live.
The truth is that what humans know about the workings of the universe amounts to nothing, as far as understanding the fundamental questions of how and why.
I dig where he's coming from, but he's still speculating. I respect him and all, but Hawking is notorious for making very mystical arguments in the language of science; he is a prime example of the mind-body dichotomy problem you see in the scientific academia, and it's a really fitting twist of fate that he was to become a physical invalid.
No speculation is actually required to dismiss the notion of there being a beginning or end to the universe.
Recap of my arguments to this end, for the curious:
Incidentally, I'm also very skeptical of the Big Bang Theory.
Because extraterrestrial life is natural life, just like ours. If we exist then it's possible that some life developed using the same natural mechanisms. God on the other hand is a magical being outside of the universe, very very different.
I mean take a look outside your window you solipsist faggot.
They don't like being told that there's something wrong and unnatural about sucking cum out of another man's asshole.
That's basically all it boils down to.
0 % chance is stil 0 belief in aliens is faith
>no scientific explanation for vigor or the will to live
It's a beneficial behavioral trait you dipshit. Both help an individual survive in the wild, every animal has the will to live. I hope that was b8, because otherwise you are braindead.
i do and i see the glorious universe god has created for us
This.
Degenerate behaviour has side affects, all of which lead to disease, war, drug abuse and overall societal cancer.
If God created us to flourish, then degeneracy is like disease or cancer. It is anti life.
That's why it's sin.
Most atheists don't believe in extraterrestrial life though because most atheists are skepdicks. There is no proof of ET therefore it doesn't exist. We are special snowflakes in the universe. Seriously this is what most of them believe
The hot new theory is that we're all just in a simulation anyway. What difference does it make? Pascals Wager and all that.
Actually the biggest bit of irony would be that the true religion has stopped being a religion at all and that's statistically more likely.
You are a tremendous retard. I know this is an internet board but come on, at least punctuate so people can understand you. Your english level doesn't help either. Nor your idiotic opinions.
You explained absolutely nothing.
The fact is that science cannot explain why.
You can take a clipping of a plant, stick it in soil and it will look dead after a day. After 3 days it is reaching for the Sun and growing roots.
You cannot explain this.
Sometimes I wonder if theres a planet out there that is just animals including dinosaurs that just never really got rocked hard by asteroids. Jurassic planet type shit.
Because we have definitive proof that life exists, and literally 0 proof that a deity does.
theguardian.com
Scientists can now tell us what happened in nearly every millisecond of the big bang.
if you believe this based on 'well it's science' or 'these scientists said it' you are just as bad, if not worse than religious retards
It's easy. The basic purpose of biological life is to live and create offspring until it is unable to do so. The "will to live" is nothing more or less than what has become effectively programmed into living beings to guarantee the species' survival.
leaving a side what you said was an argument from ignorance and a bunch of bollocks, you really thing saying "God did it!" explains anything at all? im honestly wondering.
>Maybe God is the universe, you fucking dolt.
The common definition of "God" is that he is a conscious entity that created the universe. (We've already demonstrated that it's impossible to logically entertain the notion of a Creator God, so that point is moot.) If God is the entire universe, and he is conscious, there must be something *outside* of the universe for it to be conscious *of.* This is true for two related reasons: It makes no sense to discuss a consciousness that has nothing to be aware of; and a consciousness cannot be conscious only of "itself" because in order to be conscious of yourself you must have something external to differentiate "self" from "not-self."
So while it might make sense to discuss elements of the universe that are conscious, the universe itself cannot be conscious. Again, this is all rooted in the very basic notion of the law of identity.
>You have no scientific explanation for vigor, or the will to live.
It's perfectly rational as a human being to wish to be alive, depending on the context. Why do you think that mysticism is necessary to explain a desire to live?
You're simply just wrong.
Why would i care Sup Forums turned in Sup Forums 2.0 And typing with my mouse at the moment. here a punctation are you happy retard?
>science can't explain how life works
There is an entire field of science dedicated to this. It's called biology and I'm not surprised that you can't wrap your head around it.
If a being created the universe, what created the being? The god solution doesn't actually answer any questions, and world religions are preposterous explanations.
It's easier to believe alien life exists somewhere because I exist. We know life exists in the universe, we've never seen evidence of a god.
>You cannot explain this.
Oh, you're trolling. Carry on.
Hey dont blame me for your ignorance, it was just a friendly tip. You seriously expect me to understand what "0 % chance is stil 0 belief in aliens is faith" means at all?
is this bait? seriously , 'you can't explain this'
en.wikipedia.org
...
...
because we exist
We've already demonstrated that it's impossible to logically entertain the notion of a Creator God, so that point is moot.
If God is the entire universe, and he is conscious, there must be something *outside* of the universe for it to be conscious *of.*
'i think therefor i am' . a creator god is not impossible to logically entertain. we create enclosed systems that at a rudimentary level are the same as a creator god and the created universe. we have created complex worlds inside of digital space that can run and evolve unhindered by outside stimuli. it is the same argument as 'aliens can exist because we exist'
yeah no bro.
>muh special fairy class
>because we exist
wow
such deep.
very philosophy.
You can see the edginess leaking from that image.
>'i think therefor i am' . a creator god is not impossible to logically entertain. we create enclosed systems that at a rudimentary level are the same as a creator god and the created universe. we have created complex worlds inside of digital space that can run and evolve unhindered by outside stimuli. it is the same argument as 'aliens can exist because we exist'
You're presupposing there is a supreme being that "thinks." But we'll ignore that for now.
In order to think about something, you must be conscious of something *outside of yourself as a conscious entity.* Otherwise, where do the contents of your thoughts originate?
If there is nothing outside of your consciousness, then what is your consciousness *aware of?* A consciousness with nothing to be aware of *can't be conscious!*
>The sooner you realize the Universe was created from sub atomic particles clashing in a dance of destruction, the sooner you can grow the fuck up and live life.
How do you know the universe started with the big bang and not something before which induced that condition? Again, presumptuous, you really don't know jack shit like all of us. So don't assert your strong atheism like it's some perfect law.
The classical arguments for God's existence *assumed* an eternal universe, so your supposed quip is meaningless.
>we have created complex worlds inside of digital space that can run and evolve unhindered by outside stimuli
It should really go without saying that the "outside stimulus" was the creation of that mechanism in the first place. And when the programmer created that mechanism, existence already existed; the programmer might have created another system, a subset of the system in which he already existed, but he was still part of a pre-existing universe. So, not God.
Relevant recaps:
Because when "aliens" do make contact they will worship them. Unknowingly worshiping fallen angels and will have succumb to satan's will.
This.
Fedoras are quick to jump on the Tyson bandwagoning and entertain that everything in the universe is physically connected, but unwilling to entertain the idea of consciousness outside of a biological host.
>The classical arguments for God's existence *assumed* an eternal universe, so your supposed quip is meaningless.
They assumed an *eternal God.* That is, a consciousness outside of a universe and outside of existence.
This was typically where the "faith" argument came into play. "God is just this thing that we mortals can't understand. You can't explain God logically. You just have to have faith."
Because that's what the Catholic church thinks after a few centuries of mulling it all over. Also it has the obvious back door, in future scripture it can be assumed that God created the Big Bang.
I don't buy that claptrap myself but no question after the Hubble pictures, there is probably life out there but separated by a distance so immense only an atheist could come close to comprehension.
I think there be shooping going on but still impressive.
Fuck off reddit
not really sure there is a point to reply to you because you are pretty much talking in circles, but for the sake of argument.
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
notice how a form of consciousness is a state of awareness of something within oneself. you seem to be placing most of your world view on observable nature, which is fine, you have to understand that most of what we can scientifically observe is not from our biological senses, most of our understanding comes from our ability to internalize thoughts and problems and then create tools and instruments that can observe them, uv/ultraviolet light as an example. again 'i think therefor i am' and to further that 'i think therefor it is'
A fine bait is like a fine wine. The longer it persists the better it tastes.
I'm only saying agnostic atheism is the only way. Otherwise you are just wishing or lying.
Acknowledging something may be possible is not the same as saying we should behave as if that remote possibility is definitely correct.
>How do you know the universe started with the big bang and not something before which induced that condition?
Because the smartes fuckers on this planet have spent decades and centuries studying astronomy and physics and have collectivly come to the conclusion that the reason the universe came to existence is because of the big bang.
And I'm not gonna question that just because I get a hunch about supernatural interference or see a face burnt into a piece of toast.
Because there is no reason to care about that.
notice that i said can run and evolve unhindered by outside stimuli, not that it was created out of nothingness. the universe runs in a very similar way, there are physical and biological laws that govern everything inside of this enclosed system.
"existence already existed; the programmer might have created another system, a subset of the system in which he already existed, but he was still part of a pre-existing universe. So, not God."
you realize that the implication of your statement is that we as human beings know 100% actual factual every single thing about everything, you realize that is the only way you can make a definitive statement like 'no god'
+441590615141
the thing i love the most about these threads is the unbelievable hubris of a group of semi-sentient apes who have yet to come to consensus on the correct way to scrape shit off their asses think they have the entire universe figured out down to the first milliseconds of it's creation. it's ok to admit we don't know what the fuck is going on, and it's ok to question the information presented.
>notice how a form of consciousness is a state of awareness of something within oneself.
Only if there is an external existence. Without the external existence, there is nothing for the consciousness to be aware of; it cannot receive stimuli, and it cannot differentiate itself as a consciousness.
Any "internal awareness" we have comes from a direct result of external stimuli; we entertain abstract ideas because we have observed things from the outside world to create abstractions that we can then contemplate internally. Again, what would be the source of such ideas if not from the outside world?
In order to entertain the notion of a consciousness independent of an existence to be conscious *of,* like I argued earlier, you have to rely on mysticism to invent a totally different form of consciousness. It goes against everything else we've observed about the universe.
The very statement, "I think therefore I am," was formulated in the context of there being an existence outside of the consciousness that formulated that statement.
But to argue that "I think therefore it is," you are basically saying that "wishes dictate reality," which clearly isn't the case.
"the smartest fuckers" on this world have always believed in god or spirits or another world
Not today.
>you realize that is the only way you can make a definitive statement like 'no god'
No, I'm saying the definition of God is an "omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe."
If your argument is that a more intelligent entity, within the framework of a pre-existing universe, could have fashioned humanity as we know it--I'm not saying that's impossible. Just that there's no evidence.
I'm merely pointing out that the idea of a "Supreme Creator of the Universe" is a fundamentally flawed idea.
I love how Christ fags argue like liberals argue.
>that doesn't sound right so it must be wrong
Have you even read recent Lawrence Krauss?