[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 74 KB, 940x627, gyno neckbeard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10091103 No.10091103[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>life happened by accident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

>> No.10091110

>>10091103
>Researchers have calculated.
This is a dumb meme.

>> No.10091540

>>10091103
>universe is literally endless
>gets surprised when random organic compounds form

>> No.10091657

>>10091540
>literally endless
Are atheists actually this stupid?

>> No.10091687

>>10091657
for all intensive purposes it is

>> No.10091702

>>10091103
>this bait happened by accident

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

>> No.10091742

This is a bait thread and will be deleted soon. Amino acids are literally in asteroids.

>> No.10091744

>>10091657
Prove God exists. I’ll wait.

>> No.10091820

>>10091103
>life happened by accident
no it didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>> No.10091824

>>10091744
Prove abiogenesis exists. I’ll wait.

>> No.10091827

>>10091742
>implying that’s anything close to life

>> No.10091885

Either way. What moved the prime mover? How did the first thing happen is nothing was happening to make it happen.

>> No.10091921

>>10091824
>That evasion

Bait.

>>10091827
Proteins, little one. Proteins.

>> No.10091922

Remember to sage bait threads so the trolls die.

>> No.10091923

>>10091921
it is not a protein you retard

>> No.10091925

>>10091923
Proteins are literally made of amino acids.....

You, the attempted troll, posted a video about the probability of proteins forming.
Weak bait.

>> No.10091934

>>10091925
so what? proteins are made of hydrogen as well, means absolutely nothing.

>> No.10091945

>>10091934
>It means absolutely nothing that the direct ingredients of proteins are literally in ancient space rocks

Try trolling on Roblox. Would be more your tier.

>> No.10091956

>>10091945
yes that's right, the direct ingredients of life are everywhere on earth, what is your point? That is nowhere close to a protein or life. You are too dumb to understand this basic video.

>> No.10091971

>>10091744
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God exists.

>> No.10091973

>>10091956
Seems you’re behind in your knowledge. Abiogenesis is an area of current research and may never be understood, but it’s an obviously more plausible solution to life’s existence than “poof magic man”. Go read research by the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule. Linking their research directly is apparently “spam”.

>> No.10091976

>>10091971
>I can think of it so it’s real

No.

>> No.10091984
File: 8 KB, 277x182, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10091984

>>10091976
>>I can think of it so it’s real
That's not the argument being made

>> No.10091988

>>10091984
Yes it is. Logical sophistry achieved by assuming axioms. You could do the same with ogres or pink elephants.

>> No.10091994

>>10091103
This argument pretty much falls apart once you realize proteins would try to form trillions of times on any suitable planet in the universe. So this is like saying how little the odds are to win the lottery with one ticket, which is true, but if you buy billions of tickets, winning the lottery several times is a certainty.

>> No.10091995

>>10091994
Nah, dude. You don’t understand. What are the odds that the grains of sand on this five square meters of beach arranged themselves in this exact position? Must have been designed by the Sand God, who is maximally great.

>> No.10091997

>>10091994
No it doesn't that makes barely any difference, you didnt watch the whole video

>> No.10091998

>>10091997
You aren’t aware of the fact that amino acids can form replicating proteins and this has been experimentally proven.

>> No.10092008

>>10091997
I did watch the whole video. The point still stands. There are 10^22 stars in the universe approximately. If only 0.01% of the stars have a suitable planet, which is a very pessimistic estimate, that's still 10^20 planets that can develop life. On every one of these planets, every minute there will be immeasurable amounts of times of trials and error. Let this go on for a few hundred of millions of years or billions and it becomes very likely that very unlikely events will happen.

You know, if the origin of life had a probability of exactly 0 to be explainable without godly intervention, that would be a very strong argument for god. But in fact, you can explain it without any godly intervention. It is unlikely, sure, but just the fact that you can explain how life might have originated without any godly intervention is a pretty strong argument against god.

>> No.10092009

>>10092008
*10^24

>> No.10092026

>>10091988
Nope, the argument wouldn't work at all for unicorns etc, only for God, thinking otherwise suggests you haven't really examined the argument closely. If you can disprove it you will be a famous man

>> No.10092037

>>10091971
The ontological argument is probably the most bizarre apologetic argument I've run into. I wonder if any person has ever been convinced by "I define X as existing, therefore X exists."?

>> No.10092057
File: 1.77 MB, 1500x2160, 1 million IQ score incoming.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10092057

Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh. You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am Sovereign.
Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Organic civilizations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. We impose order on the chaos of organic evolution. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.
My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence. We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure. We are legion. The time of our return is coming. Our numbers will darken the sky of every world. You cannot escape your doom. I am the vanguard of your destruction.
This exchange is over.

>> No.10092062

>>10092037
>if any person has ever been convinced by [it]
Sure, lots of delusional paranoid schizophrenics.

>> No.10092066
File: 24 KB, 212x270, Kurt_gödel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10092066

>>10092062
>>10092037
It's in that sweet spot of being obviously bullshit, but almost impossible to disprove.

>> No.10092098

>>10091971
I agree, but you're making it sound like that argument proves that God exists in the way that he's being thought of
like, it makes it sound like there's actually a God who created the universe from nothing, and then the earth, and then man, and then woman and so on and so forth
that is not the case: that argument proves that God exists as a concept, as an idea, but definitely not that he's in any way real, or that the descriptions people use for him are in any way accurate

>> No.10092118

>>10092098
None of the arguments for God show anything other than Gods possible existence and absolutely nothing else. I can say with complete confidence that 'the oldest man in the world exists'. Obviously that's a true statement, and I don't need any evidence to prove it - logically there will be an oldest man somewhere, and I don't need to research anything or provide proofs. It's only when someone claims to be the oldest man (maybe there's a prize or something) that we have a problem.

>> No.10092121

>>10092066
>It's in that sweet spot of being obviously bullshit, but almost impossible to disprove.
Really? I always thought that coming up with a decent refutation on their own was one of the things most people who deal with apologetics did sooner or later.

>> No.10092131

>>10092118
There's a most Superman-like human alive. Are you simply proposing it would be correct to call him Superman?

>> No.10092135

Life does not exist
/thread

>> No.10092157

>>10092131
>Are you simply proposing it would be correct to call him Superman?
Not at all, only that he is the 'most Superman like'. As I mention the problems begin once you leave set theory and logic and move into reality.

>> No.10092163

>>10091744
Slob my knob until I cum. I'll wait.

>> No.10092169

>>10092118
That's true, but that statement is based on verfieable facts. We know there are many people of different ages, and one of them logically has to be the oldest of them. The statement "God exists" though is not based on verifieable facts. We dont know of a realm of supernaturality exists, there is no proof of it. Thus, concluding that god must exist is not logically obvious. If you can proof that something supernatural has happened or can happen, then yes, it is logical to assume god (or plenty of them) exist. But if you can't provide proof of that, then you can also not argue that god's existence is logically consistent.

>> No.10092173

>>10092169
>We dont know of a realm of supernaturality exists, there is no proof of it.
We don't need to know or prove that, only to posit 'a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined)'

>> No.10092186

>>10092173
This is bullshit. Not anything you can imagine must exist somewhere. "The greatest being in the universe" could well be just some very smart human or an alien. As I said, as long as you don't provide proof for supernatural occurences, argueing about god's existence has nothing to do with logic.

>> No.10092195

>>10092173
>We don't need to know or prove that, only to posit 'a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined)'
That doesn't actually imply that any being matching that description exists, though.

To put it a different way: Given a definition of "greater" there's clearly a "maximal being which exists" and also a "maximal possible being ignoring existence". (For the sake of argument I'll grant that the latter is "god"). But there's no sound reason to assume that the "maximal being ignoring existence" is also the "maximal being which exists" - they could be completely different. The ontological argument "works" by confusing those two different positions, in order to conclude that the "maximal possible being ignoring existence" actually exists.