Does the Existence of the Ice Age Make God Less Likely?



Antarctica may be spectacular, but it most certainly is not a pleasant place to be.

Sure, there are tours and cruises to Antarctica, but only a very few brave souls would be willing to spend a week on the frozen continent with only a backpack, a few supplies and some warm clothing – and no one would try it during the winter months. After all, Antarctica is 5.4 million square miles of virtually uninhabited ice that is, at minimum, inhospitable to humans. How bad is it? According to Universeonline.com,
Antarctica is considered a desert, with annual precipitation of only 200 mm along the coast and far less inland. The temperature in Antarctica has reached −89 °C . There are no permanent human residents, but anywhere from 1,000 to 5,000 people reside throughout the year at the research stations scattered across the continent. Only cold-adapted organisms survive there, including many types of algae, animals (for example mites, nematodes, penguins, seals and tardigrades), bacteria, fungi, plants, and protista. Vegetation where it occurs is tundra.
Does the fact that Antarctica exists argue against the existence of God?

Before you respond that I am asking a question no one asks, bear with me for a moment. Antarctica is a frozen land which is, for all practical purposes, uninhabitable by humans. And while its terrible conditions are presently confined to a couple of places on the planet, during the Ice Ages, a good portion of the planet had conditions that were very similar to Antarctica. During that time:
…sheets of ice covered all of Antarctica, large parts of Europe, North America, and South America, and small areas in Asia. In North America they stretched over Greenland and Canada and parts of the northern United States. * * * Overall, the climate was much colder and drier than it is today. Since most of the water on Earth's surface was ice, there was little precipitation and rainfall was about half of what it is today. During peak periods with most of the water frozen, global average temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees C (9 to 18 degrees F) below today’s temperature norms. ~ Pleistocene Epoch: Facts About the Last Ice Age
Obviously, living during any one of the Ice Ages was much more difficult than living in our present, warmer climate. But did the fact that during the Ice Age a large portion of the planet became inhospitable to mankind make it less likely that God existed?

This is essentially the argument that is made by Nicholas Everitt, in a book entitled The Non-Existence of God selling for the overpriced amount of $29.38 on Amazon. (I guess some people will want to waste money, and if you are that kind of person you can buy the hardcover edition for only $233.38. Everitt will undoubtedly appreciate you.) In one portion of the book, Everitt makes the argument that God’s existence is less likely because much of the universe is not friendly to life. As described in an online paper entitled “Fine-Tuning, Cosmic Hostility, and the Argument from Scale” by our old friend and CADRE member, Don McIntosh (who I would personally love to have return to blogging with us since he wrote some fantastic pieces), Everitt argues:
In an accessible and mostly well-received contribution to the philosophy of religion, The Non- Existence of God, Nicholas Everitt has argued that the enormous scale of the universe, both temporal and spatial, is evidence that the God of classical theism does not exist. According to Everitt, on the premise that human beings are the “jewel of creation,” created by a God who loves them and wants to be known by them, the universe would have been created on a less confounding and frightening, more comprehensible and hospitable human scale.
Everitt's argument is set out in syllogistic form as follows:
(1) If the God of classical theism existed, with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him, then he would create a universe on a human scale, i.e. one that is not unimaginably large, unimaginably old, and in which human beings form an unimaginably tiny part of it, temporally and spatially.
(2) The world does not display a human scale.
So: (3) There is evidence against the hypothesis that the God of classical theism exists with the purposes traditionally ascribed to him.
Personally, I find this argument to be poor, at minimum. To be fair to Everitt, as Don points out, Everitt recognizes that this isn’t a particularly compelling argument. Everitt apparently confesses, "We need to notice the limited nature of this conclusion. We have already emphasised that it is not a proof of the falsity of theism. We can also add that as presented, it does not even claim that theism is probably false. For it could quite well be the case that there was evidence against theism, but not of such a weight as to make the falsity of theism more probable than not."

That, at least, is true. But the argument as presented fails because it is based on the idea that what Everitt believes would be the best way to do something is the way that God ought to have done it, and if God chose to do it a different way then that means that God is less likely to exist. Essentially, Everitt’s argument is that if he were God, he would have created the universe differently.

Well, if I were God, I would not have created a planet that would have gone into an Ice Age killing off thousands if not millions of species because that is not hospitable to human life. Alternatively, I could even argue that if I were God, I would not have created Antarctica for the same reason.

Is that really where we are going with arguments against God’s existence: God probably doesn’t exist because He did something different than I would have done it?

But there are, of course, reasons for the miles of thick frozen ice in Antarctica. Not that I regularly recommend Mother Jones magazine, but it actually contains a good article entitled “7 reasons why Arctic sea ice matters,” explaining why the ice on the poles is important to keeping the planet cool among other things. Now, I may not like the frozen expanses of Antarctica, but God had a reason for creating a planet with frozen poles and we have enough scientific knowledge to figure out these reasons. But if I follow Everitt’s lead, I am just going to focus on whether Antarctica is hospitable to human life and when I conclude it isn’t, I should be arguing that the existence of Antarctica makes God’s existence less likely.

What nonsense.

As the old saying goes (I believe it was stated by Mark Twain), God created man in His image, and ever since man has been trying to return the favor. Sorry, but just because Everitt (and others like him) don’t understand that God’s ways are not man’s ways, and just because Everitt thinks in single-minded strategies that don’t (and cannot) take into account all of God’s potential motivations, does not mean that God doesn’t exist nor does it make it less likely that God exists.

Our good friend Don McIntosh took a different angle in his fine paper (which can be accessed here) by examining more directly the argument that God created a universe admittedly largely inhospitable to life. He does so by setting out an interesting hypothetical:
Suppose for a moment that bioengineers were able to build a novel form of life. Let’s call this new creature a kreldjz. Suppose further that a kreldjz can only live under extreme conditions, such as temperatures above 500 degrees Celsius, that can only be found in a specially constructed laboratory. Such a laboratory would have to be carefully, deliberately fine-tuned for kreldjz life; but at the same time most of the actual laboratory space, whether taken up by researchers’ and technicians’ work areas or the sensitive but bulky equipment needed to create such extreme conditions, would be strictly inhospitable (too cold, for instance) to permit a kreldjz to live. Only in the very confined, restricted space where the required extreme conditions are actualized could our kreldjz hope to survive.
If you cannot see where he is going with this argument, I invite you to download his paper (it’s free) and read it yourself. Come to think of it, buy his book (linked on the left side-bar of the blog). I think his argument also responds quite well to Everitt’s argument.

As for me as a Christian, I am not the least bit disturbed by the immense size of the universe or its overall inhospitality towards human life. That's the point of the video "The Privileged Planet" which makes a strong case for God on the exact same basis. So, when I go on my ocean cruise and see the beauty and wonder of Antarctica, I won't be thinking how it makes God less likely. I will be marveling at the wonderous works that God has made.

Comments

This comment has been removed by the author.
Don McIntosh is a great guy. I kept in touch for a while after he left. I still count him as a friend despite his unfortunate republican tendencies. ;-)

The argumemt this paper refutes is a stupid argument. That's like saying there can't be livable planets in the universe because outer space as a whole is so inhospitable.
Anonymous said…
The Bible refers to this area as part of the corners of the earth. I believe so and that earth is flat, from what the Bible says also, fixed, immovable.
BK said…
Then, Anonymous, you are not reading the Bible to understand what it says, but looking for reasons to disbelieve it.
BK said…
Yes, Joe, but based on the price of the book, it appears to be a book used as a textbook in universities (no one will pay $233 per book unless they are a student forced to by some professor). This is an argument made in the book, and it is an argument that echoes what I have read elsewhere. I agree it is stupid, but so many of the arguments (or theories) we confront are stupid.
there are stupid things at the highest level of education. I was not saying it;s not worth refuting.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
The Bible refers to this area as part of the corners of the earth. I believe so and that earth is flat, from what the Bible says also, fixed, immovable.

Darwin did not know about quantum theory
Darwin did not know about DNA

https://www.thoughtco.com/things-darwin-didnt-know-1224480


"Since the field of genetics did not exist until the 1900s, scientists of Darwin’s time were not looking for the molecule that carries genetic information from generation to generation. Once the discipline of genetics became more widespread, many people raced to discover just which molecule it was that carried this information. Finally, it was proven that DNA, a relatively simple molecule with only four different building blocks, is indeed the carrier of all genetic information for all life on Earth."

"Darwin did not know that DNA would become an important part of his Theory of Evolution. In fact, the subcategory of evolution called microevolution is completely based on DNA and the mechanism of how genetic information is passed down from parents to offspring. The discovery of DNA, its shape, and its building blocks have made it possible to track these changes that accumulate over time to effectively drive evolution"
Don McIntosh said…
Hey Bill, thanks for the shout-out and the kind remarks. That respect goes both ways, of course.

I have to admit, even knowing you were citing one of my papers, I had no idea how you were going to link Antarctica with unbelief. Well done.
Don McIntosh said…
I appreciate that, Joe. I kind of lost contact with everyone after leaving Facebook. Hope you’re doing well, my friend.
Anonymous said…
BK: That, at least, is true. But the argument as presented fails because it is based on the idea that what Everitt believes would be the best way to do something is the way that God ought to have done it, and if God chose to do it a different way then that means that God is less likely to exist. Essentially, Everitt’s argument is that if he were God, he would have created the universe differently.

It is more than that. It is that we cannot even imagine a possible reason for God to create such a vast universe, given the premise that he did so for us to live in (if you think we are incidental to God's plan, then this argument fails, but that is not the usual Christian view).

BK: Now, I may not like the frozen expanses of Antarctica, but God had a reason for creating a planet with frozen poles and we have enough scientific knowledge to figure out these reasons.

Great straw man. If you could find a plausible explanation for why God created 100 billion stars systems besides this one, you might have a point. But the fact is that the existence of the other star systems has almost zero impact on Earth, and he could as readily have planted lights on the edge of the solar system as stars to do the same job (a possibility Don McIntosh does not consider, I note).

And after that, we have to wonder why God created a similar number of galaxies. Can you think of any plausible reason for God to create 100 billion galaxies, the existence of which would be entirely unknown for the vast majority of human history?

Don McIntosh: Such a laboratory would have to be carefully, deliberately fine-tuned for kreldjz life; but at the same time most of the actual laboratory space, whether taken up by researchers’ and technicians’ work areas or the sensitive but bulky equipment needed to create such extreme conditions, would be strictly inhospitable (too cold, for instance) to permit a kreldjz to live.

Great. So just show how 100 billion other star systems have to exist to support this one.

And then show how 100 billion other galaxies have to exist to support this one.

The simple fact is that DM's story is not analogous to our situation. It works at the world level; sure, Antarctica is a necessary part of the planet. But that is just arguing against your own straw man.

Pix
hey Don good to hear from you. Glad you still read the blog
Pix: "we cannot even imagine a possible reason for God to create such a vast universe, given the premise that he did so for us to live in (if you think we are incidental to God's plan, then this argument fails, but that is not the usual Christian view)."

No the argument is stupid and your jazzes up version doesn't help, you are assuming God is just a big man who thinks like a kid with powers. I'm going to make a world now that world is peopled with one race that matters so the universe must fit that race. We do not know that God thinks even remotely in that way. Apparel just guessing God has started a laboratory in which the mammal number of possible life forms can emerge and only he knows why. But we have no logical reason for pretending we understand it.
Anonymous said…
Joe: No the argument is stupid and your jazzes up version doesn't help, you are assuming God is just a big man who thinks like a kid with powers. I'm going to make a world now that world is peopled with one race that matters so the universe must fit that race.

That is the assumption of the fine-tuning argument, Joe, an argument you have been promoting recently.

Christians seem to take the view that the universe was specially created for humanity when it suits them, and that that is just a silly assumption when that suits them. If they could get their story straight, they might find their claims taken more seriously.

Joe: We do not know that God thinks even remotely in that way.

Why not? What has thousands of years of Christianity actually determined about God?

Nothing!

Why is that? Because he is a figment of your collective imagination, and you all imagine him in your own way, and so we end up with countless disparate ideas of what God is like. If God was real, and he did actually commune with his followers, they would have some clue about what he thinks.

Joe: Apparel just guessing God has started a laboratory in which the mammal number of possible life forms can emerge and only he knows why.

But the analogy fails because the solar system does not require any paraphernalia to keep it running. Sure, there might be mechanisms in some other dimensions we cannot comprehend, but that fails to explain the other 100 billion star systems in this galaxy, and fails to explain the other 100 billion galaxies, with their own 100 billion star systems each.

Joe: But we have no logical reason for pretending we understand it.

We cannot even imagine a possible reason! All you have is the faith that there might be some reason we cannot fathom. Once again, we see religion thriving on ignorance.

Pix
Joe: No the argument is stupid and your jazzes up version doesn't help, you are assuming God is just a big man who thinks like a kid with powers. I'm going to make a world now that world is peopled with one race that matters so the universe must fit that race.

That is the assumption of the fine-tuning argument, Joe, an argument you have been promoting recently.

No it's not. There is a distinction between saying "the universe exists just for humans" and saying --the universe is set up to grow a certain kind of being as the apex and humans fit the mold but are not necessarily the only group that does

Christians seem to take the view that the universe was specially created for humanity when it suits them, and that that is just a silly assumption when that suits them. If they could get their story straight, they might find their claims taken more seriously.



Humanity IS cleanly SPECIAL TO God BECAUSE HE BECAME ONE, but THAT DOESN;T MEAN THERE AREN;T OTHERS TOO


Joe: We do not know that God thinks even remotely in that way.

PX: Why not? What has thousands of years of Christianity actually determined about God?

Nothing!

God is rel, h loves us, e is Holy. but that doesn't tell us his purposes. He has not told us his purposes.We can be sure they are loving because he is loving.


Why is that?

Because he's too big we would not understand,

Because he is a figment of your collective imagination, and you all imagine him in your own way, and so we end up with countless disparate ideas of what God is like. If God was real, and he did actually commune with his followers, they would have some clue about what he thinks.

Human imagination gets carried away evening dealing with real things. We have a grounding in Jesus who modeled God's personality for us

Joe: Apparel just guessing God has started a laboratory in which the minimal number of possible life forms can emerge and only he knows why.

But the analogy fails because the solar system does not require any paraphernalia to keep it running. Sure, there might be mechanisms in some other dimensions we cannot comprehend, but that fails to explain the other 100 billion star systems in this galaxy, and fails to explain the other 100 billion galaxies, with their own 100 billion star systems each.


You are making assumptions without a basis in fact.who says God takes as a primary mission keeping nature going? Obviously he made it to be idempotent. There's more to reality than just physical nature. There's the spatial realm.

Joe: But we have no logical reason for pretending we understand it.

We cannot even imagine a possible reason!

why do we need to? why should this super perfect ultimate being tell you his total grand design?


All you have is the faith that there might be some reason we cannot fathom. Once again, we see religion thriving on ignorance.

We have a total assurance that God's ultimate plan for us is eternal life with him. He actually died for that end.

Pix
Joe
Don McIntosh said…
Hey Joe, good to hear from you too. I pop in once in a while. In this case Bill mentioned on Academia that he might be using my paper for an argument of his own, so I checked later and there it was.
Don McIntosh said…
Pix said, "Great. So just show how 100 billion other star systems have to exist to support this one."

Okay, Pix. I’m not sure your request deserves a reply, given that it follows a casual dismissal of an argument I suspect you have not actually read. But I’m feeling generous today, so...

First, in terms of cosmology and physics, if the universe were not continually expanding, gravitation would have caused the universe to collapse in on itself a long time ago. That’s what people much smarter than me seem to suggest, anyway.

Second, in terms of theology, and as I argued in my paper, the universe now appears immense and unfriendly because we have fallen from grace, out of the comfortable confines of the Garden of Eden, out of God’s presence. The “starkness” we experience is a consequence of sin and the fall.

Third, again as I pointed out in my paper, “if the entire universe were fine-tuned for life to exist, and therefore life existed throughout the universe, we would have no way of know the difference between ‘fine-tuned’ and ‘not-tuned-at-all. That is, given that everywhere is already fine-tuned for life we would have no real-world evidence of what a set of conditions that are hostile to life would even look like.”
Anonymous said…
Joe: No it's not. There is a distinction between saying "the universe exists just for humans" and saying --the universe is set up to grow a certain kind of being as the apex and humans fit the mold but are not necessarily the only group that does

So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

Another post here said recently: "But surely it is POSSIBLE that religion MIGHT yield some sort of worthwhile knowledge for humankind." Thank you for highlighting the sort of knowledge religion offers us. Vague and clueless seems to sum it up.

Joe: Humanity IS cleanly SPECIAL TO God BECAUSE HE BECAME ONE, but THAT DOESN;T MEAN THERE AREN;T OTHERS TOO

You claim to be a theologian, so I ask you; have you actually thought this through? Do you think Jesus dying on the cross saved all the intelligent aliens too? Or did they have their own savior? Or did Jesus take the form of each one in turn, and get crucified on every inhabited planet? Or did they not need saving? Again, vague and clueless.

Get back to me when you have decided what it is you are claiming.

Joe: God is rel, h loves us, e is Holy. but that doesn't tell us his purposes. He has not told us his purposes.We can be sure they are loving because he is loving.

Every baby born with a disability, every kid that gets cancer says otherwise.

Joe: Because he's too big we would not understand,

It is a shame he did not make us better then. Or that he is no good at explaining stuff.

Joe: Human imagination gets carried away evening dealing with real things. We have a grounding in Jesus who modeled God's personality for us

Great, so I look forward to you answering these questions.

Joe: You are making assumptions without a basis in fact.who says God takes as a primary mission keeping nature going? Obviously he made it to be idempotent. There's more to reality than just physical nature. There's the spatial realm.

Not sure what your point is. How does this explain 100 billion potentially uninhabited star systems?

Joe: why do we need to?

To give at least some reassurance it is a real possibility. i am not saying yo have to be right, but the fact that you cannot contrive a plausible explanation suggests there is none out there.

Joe: why should this super perfect ultimate being tell you his total grand design?

Good point. He does seem to like keeping us in ignorance. just look at how angry he got when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of knowledge. It is not just Christians who are anti-science, it is God too.

To me that seems incompatible with love. I suppose it depends on whether he sees us as individiduals, intelligent beings, or rather he loves us as pets or experiments.

Pix`
Don McIntosh said…
Pix said, “Every baby born with a disability, every kid that gets cancer says otherwise.”

My daughter was born with a disability, and she loves God and believes God loves her. And just this morning after a prayer meeting I was talking with an old friend suffering from a form of cancer that has left her with one arm and evidently not much longer to live. She also loves God and believes God loves her.
Anonymous said…
Don: My daughter was born with a disability, and she loves God and believes God loves her....

It is sad to hear that your daughter has a disability. I am sure you have thought about this a lot, so perhaps you can tell me how a loving God would afflict an innocent child in such a way. The Problem of Nature Evil is hardly a new one, and yet I have seriously no idea how Christians explain this (besides the outliers who say it is the sins of the parents or God does not love us).

Sometimes people say the disability has a positive aspect. I can appreciate it has positive aspects, and it is good to focus on the positives, but I question the view that having a disability is - on balance - a good thing. If that is your position, would you say that it would be good to deliberately give a child a disability (that would be the implication if having a disability was overall a good thing)? If a miracle cure was available at no cost, would you refuse it?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No it's not. There is a distinction between saying "the universe exists just for humans" and saying --the universe is set up to grow a certain kind of being as the apex and humans fit the mold but are not necessarily the only group that does

So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

I son't have consult God on everything I think that's why he gave me a brain, I'm a stable genius,

Another post here said recently: "But surely it is POSSIBLE that religion MIGHT yield some sort of worthwhile knowledge for humankind." Thank you for highlighting the sort of knowledge religion offers us. Vague and clueless seems to sum it up.

I am not responsible for what other people write,

Joe: Humanity IS cleanly SPECIAL TO God BECAUSE HE BECAME ONE, but THAT DOESN;T MEAN THERE AREN;T OTHERS TOO

You claim to be a theologian, so I ask you; have you actually thought this through? Do you think Jesus dying on the cross saved all the intelligent aliens too? Or did they have their own savior? Or did Jesus take the form of each one in turn, and get crucified on every inhabited planet? Or did they not need saving? Again, vague and clueless.


Yes I have thought about it quite bit. Sin is a human problem that's why the Bible links it to Adam and Eve; even though I take them as metaphor it still links sin to human origin/ O presume other species have their relation to God. Does that mean Jesus dies for them in the form of their own guys I don't know ask Gene Roddenberry. I trust that God has provided from them in some way,


Get back to me when you have decided what it is you are claiming.


You really think that's impossible to deal with don't You? You have no theological instincts. I just did deal with it in a way that resoles the problem until such a time as aliases land and start preaching at us,

Joe: God is rel, h loves us, e is Holy. but that doesn't tell us his purposes. He has not told us his purposes.We can be sure they are loving because he is loving.

Every baby born with a disability, every kid that gets cancer says otherwise.

wrong you are not qualified to to speak for such people, I know from personal experience and from knowing others in that boat that's wrong,

Joe: Because he's too big we would not understand,

It is a shame he did not make us better then. Or that he is no good at explaining stuff.


stop thinking about God as a big man in the sky, you think of him as though he were a big child with toys


Joe: Human imagination gets carried away evening dealing with real things. We have a grounding in Jesus who modeled God's personality for us

Great, so I look forward to you answering these questions.


those are my answers

Joe: You are making assumptions without a basis in fact.who says God takes as a primary mission keeping nature going? Obviously he made it to be idempotent. There's more to reality than just physical nature. There's the spatial realm.

Not sure what your point is. How does this explain 100 billion potentially uninhabited star systems?

ho do you knkow they are uninhabited? We need the space we have for evolution to work. God creates the laws and lets evolution take it's course is that so hard? But he can tweek.

Joe: why do we need to?

To give at least some reassurance it is a real possibility. i am not saying yo have to be right, but the fact that you cannot contrive a plausible explanation suggests there is none out there.

I think I did

Joe: why should this super perfect ultimate being tell you his total grand design?

Good point. He does seem to like keeping us in ignorance. just look at how angry he got when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of knowledge. It is not just Christians who are anti-science, it is God too.

He's obviously allowed us to make progress. It is humans who hold us back and Greenland and shit hole countries,;-)

To me that seems incompatible with love. I suppose it depends on whether he sees us as individiduals, intelligent beings, or rather he loves us as pets or experiments.

I think need to contemplate love more. try outing your blessings

that should say counting blessings
Sometimes people say the disability has a positive aspect. I can appreciate it has positive aspects, and it is good to focus on the positives, but I question the view that having a disability is - on balance - a good thing. If that is your position, would you say that it would be good to deliberately give a child a disability (that would be the implication if having a disability was overall a good thing)? If a miracle cure was available at no cost, would you refuse it?

I don;t think God specifically decides the characteristics of a given baby, He created nature with it;s own laws so it can take its own course,
Don McIntosh said…
Pix, a couple of points about disabilities and evil.

First, my daughter is one of the greatest joys in my life, and she seems pretty joyful herself, so the fact that she has a disability is not really a cause for sadness (though it certainly was when we first got the news of her condition). Would it be a good thing to deliberately give a child a disability? I don’t think so. As I said, finding out about her condition was painful for us, and in many ways continues to be painful for her. Would I accept a “cure” for her? If I had to make the decision without consulting anyone, I would say no, because I don’t know where to draw the line between my daughter and her condition, and I would never want to lose who she is as a person. Now if my daughter herself desired such a cure, I suppose that would be a different story.

Second, I would say that for me, being theologically conservative, “natural evil” is sufficiently explained as the consequence of the “moral evil” originally committed in the Garden of Eden. So, following Adam and Eve’s transgression, a curse came upon the earth, productive labor became sweat-inducingly difficult, bearing children became exceedingly painful, and as Paul noted, the whole creation “groans” as a result. Granted, on the biblical view, evil is exceedingly unjust and difficult to manage, in that a little goes a really long way – indeed much too far. But that’s sort of the point. Evil is not supposed to be just or manageable in the first place. That would be why God warns so stringently against playing around with it.
Anonymous said…
Pix: So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

Joe: I son't have consult God on everything I think that's why he gave me a brain, I'm a stable genius,

The claim that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology; it is trivially true. I was mocking the vagueness of your position - of course no revelation from God was required..

Joe: Yes I have thought about it quite bit. Sin is a human problem that's why the Bible links it to Adam and Eve; even though I take them as metaphor it still links sin to human origin/ O presume other species have their relation to God. Does that mean Jesus dies for them in the form of their own guys I don't know ask Gene Roddenberry. I trust that God has provided from them in some way,

So in summary, you do not know if other intelligent species exist and if they do you do not know how they are saved. As I said, vague and clueless.

Joe: You really think that's impossible to deal with don't You?

Yes. I note that you failed to deal with it.

Joe: You have no theological instincts. I just did deal with it in a way that resoles the problem until such a time as aliases land and start preaching at us,

Saying you will deal with it when aliens land is failing to deal with it.

Joe: wrong you are not qualified to to speak for such people, I know from personal experience and from knowing others in that boat that's wrong,

So tell me why God chooses to inflict disability and cancer on innocent children.

Joe: stop thinking about God as a big man in the sky, you think of him as though he were a big child with toys

Are you a Christian or a deist? I was assuming a Christian, who believes God loves each of us individually, enough to send Jesus here to be sacrificed.

Pix: How does this explain 100 billion potentially uninhabited star systems?

Joe: ho do you knkow they are uninhabited?

Do you know what "potentially" means?

Joe: We need the space we have for evolution to work. God creates the laws and lets evolution take it's course is that so hard? But he can tweek.

That does sound more like deism than Christianity...

But can you explain why evolution needs 100 billion star systems? I think it would have produced the same result with a single planet orbiting a single sun. All the rest is superfluous.

Joe: He's obviously allowed us to make progress. ...

But he has never once helped us. Hmm, almost as though he does not exist...

Joe: ... It is humans who hold us back and Greenland and shit hole countries,;-)

It is humans who have made all the discoveries.

Joe: I don;t think God specifically decides the characteristics of a given baby, He created nature with it;s own laws so it can take its own course,

Okay, so you are a deist. Christians believe Psalm 139:13-14.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

Joe: I don't have to consult God on everything I think that's why he gave me a brain, I'm a stable genius,

The claim that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology; it is trivially true. I was mocking the vagueness of your position - of course no revelation from God was required..

It' not a tautology,the question is not are we the only but are we the favored? my answer is there may be others equally as favored,that is not true by definition,

Joe: Yes I have thought about it quite bit. Sin is a human problem that's why the Bible links it to Adam and Eve; even though I take them as metaphor it still links sin to human origin/ O presume other species have their relation to God. Does that mean Jesus dies for them in the form of their own guys I don't know ask Gene Roddenberry. I trust that God has provided from them in some way,

So in summary, you do not know if other intelligent species exist and if they do you do not know how they are saved. As I said, vague and clueless.

You don't know that either. that's rather idiotic to place one of the epoch making questions on the same par with other questions,

Joe: You really think that's impossible to deal with don't You?

Yes. I note that you failed to deal with it.

Joe: You have no theological instincts. I just did deal with it in a way that resoles the problem until such a time as aliases land and start preaching at us,

Saying you will deal with it when aliens land is failing to deal with it.

Hardy! the way to really get an answer. yOU dONT KNOW, SETTNG YOURSELF UP AS A JUDGE WHEN YOU ARE IN THE DARK TOO,



Joe: wrong you are not qualified to to speak for such people, I know from personal experience and from knowing others in that boat that's wrong,

So tell me why God chooses to inflict disability and cancer on innocent children.

I didn;t claim to know that I claimed to be in the category of people for whom You pretend to speak. You do not speak for me.

Joe: stop thinking about God as a big man in the sky, you think of him as though he were a big child with toys

Are you a Christian or a deist? I was assuming a Christian, who believes God loves each of us individually, enough to send Jesus here to be sacrificed.

you do not understand Christian assumption, Nothing in the faith says God is a big man,It says clearly in the Bible For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Pix: How does this explain 100 billion potentially uninhabited star systems?

my argumet is I don't have to explicate it because it can;t be explained by mortals.

Joe: how do you knkow they are uninhabited?

Do you know what "potentially" means?

up don't because the odds are there is life out there, even intelligent life (there;s isn't any of that here


Joe: We need the space we have for evolution to work. God creates the laws and lets evolution take it's course is that so hard? But he can tweek.

That does sound more like deism than Christianity...

That's because you don;t read theology. You don't know what real theology sounds like.

But can you explain why evolution needs 100 billion star systems? I think it would have produced the same result with a single planet orbiting a single sun. All the rest is superfluous.

do you know what a red herring is? Obviously the size of the universe is part of the the way the anthropic principle has played out It must be good for something.

Joe: He's obviously allowed us to make progress. ...

But he has never once helped us. Hmm, almost as though he does not exist...

that's utter rubbish, a statement you have no right to make because it's unanswerable. But from a Christian perspective he's helped us everyday.Every time someone does the right thing God made that possible.


Joe: ... It is humans who hold us back and Greenland and shit hole countries,;-)

It is humans who have made all the discoveries.

why would God need to make discoveries? You have no way of knowing the help gives each one

Joe: I don;t think God specifically decides the characteristics of a given baby, He created nature with it;s own laws so it can take its own course,

Okay, so you are a deist. Christians believe Psalm 139:13-14.

that is not the definition of deism


Psalm 139:13-14 New International Version (NIV)
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

that does not say God gave me brown hair rather than blond. or God chose I would be 5.8. The inmost being is the spirit not the body, God could have done this by creating the laws that govern genetics,
Anonymous said…
Pix: So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

Joe: I don't have to consult God on everything I think that's why he gave me a brain, I'm a stable genius,

Pix: The claim that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology; it is trivially true. I was mocking the vagueness of your position - of course no revelation from God was required..

Joe: It' not a tautology,the question is not are we the only but are we the favored? my answer is there may be others equally as favored,that is not true by definition,

The claim humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology, despite your attempts to move the goalposts.

Joe: You don't know that either. that's rather idiotic to place one of the epoch making questions on the same par with other questions,

No, I do not know it. But I do not claim to be communing with an all-knowing being on a regular basis.

Furthermore, my worldview does not hinge on the question. Atheism is entirely neutral on the issue. The same cannot be said for Christianity; its claims about salvation will necessarily impact on the nature of alien races.

You indicated earlier your positron was "the universe is set up to grow a certain kind of being as the apex and humans fit the mold but are not necessarily the only group that does". You have contrived your hypothesis such hat it is founded on both mankind being the only intelligent species in the universe AND with a universe teeming with life. This is the hallmark of religion - and pseudo-science. Make your hypothesis fit the facts, whatever they turn out to be.

Joe: Hardy! the way to really get an answer. yOU dONT KNOW, SETTNG YOURSELF UP AS A JUDGE WHEN YOU ARE IN THE DARK TOO,

But my hypothesis about the origin of the universe does not relate to intelligent life in it. We are just a happy accident, and whether other races exist does not impact the hypothesis, by the nature of the hypothesis.

Joe: Humanity IS cleanly SPECIAL TO God BECAUSE HE BECAME ONE, but THAT DOESN;T MEAN THERE AREN;T OTHERS TOO

See, your origins hypothesis is deeply tied to mankind being special. But you cannot take the next step to say if mankind is uniquely special, or merely one race amongst billions. It is a huge difference, theologically. But one we have no clue about and yoy dare not even speculate for fear of being wrong.

Pix: So tell me why God chooses to inflict disability and cancer on innocent children.

Joe: I didn;t claim to know that I claimed to be in the category of people for whom You pretend to speak. You do not speak for me.

I could not answer the question either, if I was in your place.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: you do not understand Christian assumption, Nothing in the faith says God is a big man,It says clearly in the Bible For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

A useful excuse.

If God was real, he would be able to explain, if in very simple terms. Fact is, he chooses not to. He chooses to withhold that information.

Joe: do you know what a red herring is?

Sure. The Antarctica thing in the blog post is a great example.

Joe: Obviously the size of the universe is part of the the way the anthropic principle has played out It must be good for something.

What is the anthropic principle in your theology? To me, it is part of why religion is wrong, so I assume you see it different?

Joe: that's utter rubbish, a statement you have no right to make because it's unanswerable. But from a Christian perspective he's helped us everyday.Every time someone does the right thing God made that possible.

So point to a scientific discovery that came from God.

Joe: that does not say God gave me brown hair rather than blond. or God chose I would be 5.8. The inmost being is the spirit not the body, God could have done this by creating the laws that govern genetics,

It says exactly that. Compare the Psalm with these verses:

1 Jeremiah 1:5 I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

Psalm 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother's womb.
My praise is continually of you.

The Biblical view is that God created each of us in the womb. The deist view is that god set everything in motion, then let the universe unfurl. "God could have done this by creating the laws that govern genetics" is deism.

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Pix: So your claim is that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe? Did God reveal that to you?

Joe: I don't have to consult God on everything I think that's why he gave me a brain, I'm a stable genius,

Pix: The claim that humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology; it is trivially true. I was mocking the vagueness of your position - of course no revelation from God was required..

Joe: It' not a tautology,the question is not are we the only but are we the favored? my answer is there may be others equally as favored,that is not true by definition,

The claim humans may or may not be the only species in the universe is a tautology, despite your attempts to move the goalposts.


You changed my statement,I never said they may or may not be. I say we are special to God but we may not be the only one's who are. That is not a tautology because noting there insoles truth by definition,

Joe: You don't know that either. that's rather idiotic to place one of the epoch making questions on the same par with other questions,

No, I do not know it. But I do not claim to be communing with an all-knowing being on a regular basis.

I never claimed God is giving me press releases.


Furthermore, my worldview does not hinge on the question. Atheism is entirely neutral on the issue. The same cannot be said for Christianity; its claims about salvation will necessarily impact on the nature of alien races.


No they don't. If Alien races exist they have their own set up with God that will be there weather we exist or not

You indicated earlier your positron was "the universe is set up to grow a certain kind of being as the apex and humans fit the mold but are not necessarily the only group that does". You have contrived your hypothesis such hat it is founded on both mankind being the only intelligent species in the universe AND with a universe teeming with life. This is the hallmark of religion - and pseudo-science. Make your hypothesis fit the facts, whatever they turn out to be.

No your analysis is incorrect. I never said Mankind must be the only intelligent species I just we might be.



Joe: Hardy! the way to really get an answer. yOU dONT KNOW, SETTNG YOURSELF UP AS A JUDGE WHEN YOU ARE IN THE DARK TOO,

But my hypothesis about the origin of the universe does not relate to intelligent life in it. We are just a happy accident, and whether other races exist does not impact the hypothesis, by the nature of the hypothesis.

same here. weather others exist or not does not effect us,

Joe: Humanity IS cleanly SPECIAL TO God BECAUSE HE BECAME ONE, but THAT DOESN;T MEAN THERE AREN;T OTHERS TOO

See, your origins hypothesis is deeply tied to mankind being special.

still different from being exclcive

But you cannot take the next step to say if mankind is uniquely special, or merely one race amongst billions. It is a huge difference, theologically. But one we have no clue about and yoy dare not even speculate for fear of being wrong.

It doesn't have to be answered.It doesn't hurt us not to know. Someday we will answer it it wont hurt us then either,

Pix: So tell me why God chooses to inflict disability and cancer on innocent children.

God does not inflict it, It is a natural occurrence. He does not actively give kids cancer. He led Danny Thomas to start ST Jude;s children;s hospital which helped reverse the trend now childhood cancer has 80% survival rate whereas it was only 20% when Thonams started st Judes
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: you do not understand Christian assumption, Nothing in the faith says God is a big man,It says clearly in the Bible For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

A useful excuse.

It was your argument

If God was real, he would be able to explain, if in very simple terms. Fact is, he chooses not to. He chooses to withhold that information.

Joe: do you know what a red herring is?

Sure. The Antarctica thing in the blog post is a great example.

red herring is an idea that takes us off scent of a previous issue, that started the discussion so there was no previous scent,

Joe: Obviously the size of the universe is part of the the way the anthropic principle has played out It must be good for something.

What is the anthropic principle in your theology? To me, it is part of why religion is wrong, so I assume you see it different?

misanthropic principle says fine running works systematically to favor life.There is no explanation for it naturalistic ally, the odds are overwhelmingly against it,



Joe: that's utter rubbish, a statement you have no right to make because it's unanswerable. But from a Christian perspective he's helped us everyday.Every time someone does the right thing God made that possible.

So point to a scientific discovery that came from God.

Newton attributed all of his discoveries to God


Joe: that does not say God gave me brown hair rather than blond. or God chose I would be 5.8. The inmost being is the spirit not the body, God could have done this by creating the laws that govern genetics,

It says exactly that. Compare the Psalm with these verses:

1 Jeremiah 1:5 I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.

No that is not what it says, that does not say God decided what the prophet would look like,it says he decreed this baby would be a prophet, doesn't say he arranges his physical characteristics,


Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

formed in the womb would just refer to the process of development that all fetuses follow not the particulars of physical endowent,



Psalm 71:6 Upon you I have leaned from before my birth;
you are he who took me from my mother's womb.
My praise is continually of you.

same principle apply


The Biblical view is that God created each of us in the womb. The deist view is that god set everything in motion, then let the universe unfurl. "God could have done this by creating the laws that govern genetics" is deism.

Name the major deistic theologians and tell me their major works, You going by a scant understanding of deism and no real knowledge of Christianity. Really man, stop listening to fundamentalists there is no tenets of Christian doctrine that says God deices the physical characteristics of a child in the womb

Wednesday on Metacrock I will do a post on Christianity and deism. be there are be square

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger