Paul the Human Wrote:...since there are nearly infinite possibilities that life has evolved elsewhere in the universe, it is likely that it has. That is a logical conclusion...

When I present evidence and say it's a logical conclusion that there's a God, what I get here is that I'm begging the question. Sounds like a double standard.

Paul the Human Wrote:The probability of an omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent being existing are slim to none compared to the probability that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. We know life happened here, therefore it is quite probable that it has happened elsewhere. We do not know that any deities exist, so there is no reason to suppose one does.

This presupposes the idea that life happened as you described, which I nor other believers accept, and which has never been proven. Therefore, your argument is circular (another atheist staple retort).

1.) That isn't what 'begging the question' means.

2.) The difference is that my conclusion is based upon the rational observation of demonstrable, empirical evidence. That means it is not circular. There is no presupposition.

Hmm...let's see. 3 planets had life on them in this one solar system. Those planets being mars, venus and earth. Only earth could support life. Turns out venus once had life on it at one point, didn't get very far though. (according to the discovery channel).

Now this is just our solar system. There are many hundreds of billions of them out there. What are the chances that life hasn't started on other worlds? So yes, alien life on another world is highly likely.
Hundreds of billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars in each and hundreds of sextrillion planets. What makes you think life can't happen on at least one of those planets?

I'm very sure there are other life forms out there. Many far more advanced than us and probably all atheist. Their civilisation may have grown out of religion entirely.

I'd think that us having contact with an extremely advanced race would devastate religions as a whole here. Their knowledge could greatly contradict every religious belief here. Would be nice wouldn't it?
Also their existance would prove that we are not the most intelligent or advanced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M21xFVwL...RS1jg68srE

We don't need god to explain things.

Quote:and say it's a logical conclusion that there's a God

An invisible sky daddy is never a "logical" conclusion.

Paul the Human Wrote:1.) That isn't what 'begging the question' means.

That's debatable. There are different types of 'begging the question,' and different usages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

But let's not get sidetracked.

Paul the Human Wrote:2.) The difference is that my conclusion is based upon the rational observation...

It's rational because you 'believe' it is so. (I keep getting that here, too.)

Paul the Human Wrote:...of demonstrable, empirical evidence...

Can you point out what these are?

Quote:...That means it is not circular. There is no presupposition.

You say that there is life out there because life happened here. But in order for this theory to work, you would have to believe that life happened on its own based on the the conditions of the planet, which you believe without proof, and I don't. You're trying to make your argument fit your own belief. Therefore it is circular.

(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Paul the Human Wrote:1.) That isn't what 'begging the question' means.

That's debatable. There are different types of 'begging the question,' and different usages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

But let's not get sidetracked.

That Wiki page says: “Begging the Question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.”

That is not what I’ve been doing, but I agree… no need to be side-tracked by semantic arguments like that.

(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Paul the Human Wrote:2.) The difference is that my conclusion is based upon the rational observation...

It's rational because you 'believe' it is so. (I keep getting that here, too.)

The conclusion is rational because it is based on what the evidence shows, as opposed to being despite evidence to the contrary or by dismissing the evidence because it does not fit my preconceived notion.

(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Paul the Human Wrote:...of demonstrable, empirical evidence...

Can you point out what these are?

I could. I’m not going to take the time to type up all the evidence that supports evolution as the ‘way it works’, though. Especially since you are already aware of it and have chosen to dismiss it, as it does not fit your preconceived notion.

(April 29, 2010 at 2:53 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Quote:...That means it is not circular. There is no presupposition.

You say that there is life out there because life happened here. But in order for this theory to work, you would have to believe that life happened on its own based on the the conditions of the planet, which you believe without proof, and I don't. You're trying to make your argument fit your own belief. Therefore it is circular.

I have not said life is out there. I said it is probable… specifically… more probable than the existence of god. As for believing that life happened on this planet due to the conditions of the planet, you have to admit, it is a far more rational explanation than ‘godidit’.

I accept that conclusion, because that is what the scientific evidence has shown. It was not done with the preconceived conclusion that god does not exist, instead it was done as a quest for answers and has discovered zero evidence that god exists, while also showing that god does not appear to be necessary at all. Nothing circular about it.

(April 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(April 29, 2010 at 11:34 am)Shell B Wrote:

(April 29, 2010 at 11:30 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(April 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm)Shell B Wrote: ...Is it typical for a young atheist to be able to observe the world around her better than an old theist?

Who you calling old?

I don't know, maybe the guy running around acting like an atheist's youth dictates her ability to reason. Just sounded like something my grandmother would say, or a really smug theist in their 20's or 30's.

Since those are the only two choices as I guess I'll take smug. Hey, did we just have our first fight?

Nah, couldn't have been a fight. I didn't drop a single f-bomb.

(April 29, 2010 at 9:41 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(April 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(April 29, 2010 at 11:34 am)Shell B Wrote:

(April 29, 2010 at 11:30 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(April 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm)Shell B Wrote: ...Is it typical for a young atheist to be able to observe the world around her better than an old theist?

Who you calling old?

I don't know, maybe the guy running around acting like an atheist's youth dictates her ability to reason. Just sounded like something my grandmother would say, or a really smug theist in their 20's or 30's.

Since those are the only two choices as I guess I'll take smug. Hey, did we just have our first fight?

Nah, couldn't have been a fight. I didn't drop a single f-bomb.

Fiddlesticks?

(April 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Ace Wrote: Turns out venus once had life on it at one point, didn't get very far though. (according to the discovery channel).

Whoa, slow down there... I don't recall any evidence that life ever existed on Venus (or Mars for that matter). Theories and speculation, sure, but no hard evidence.

Citation or else I call bull.

(April 30, 2010 at 2:03 am)Loki_999 Wrote: Whoa, slow down there... I don't recall any evidence that life ever existed on Venus (or Mars for that matter). Theories and speculation, sure, but no hard evidence.

Citation or else I call bull.

Quote:Citation or else I call bull.

You can take it up with the discovery channel and NASA if you want.
Also, theories are based on evidence. We have reason to conclude that there was life on mars.

Had to look through the discover channel online but found you sites to visit.
http://seds.org/~spider/spider/Mars/mmetlife.html
According to what has been found, there are fossils on mars. There is evidence that there was water and alot of it.


If there was water, they may have also been life too. Mars was alive much like this planet but died.

And this one of venus. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/ve...40826.html

Based on what we know of the planets history, life most likely started on them.

This is all based on what I heard while watching the discovery channel. Might pay to flick onto it sometime.