Aliens

[Sal1981]

I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.

This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?

[gracedwithlife]

I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.

This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?

That's just one of 800 variables.

[Sal1981]

I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.

This just says that were it different, we wouldn't exist to remark about a lack of Jupiter in the first place. Ever heard about the anthropic principle?

That's just one of 800 variables.

Is one of those variables how much shit you have to assume to be necessary for life?

We only have one planet to go on and some general idea of what constitutes life. The building-blocks for carbon-based life is quite common actually. Even present on comets.

We only know of life from this planet, so of course estimates like Drake's Equation is an arbitrary assessment of the chance of life arising.

[gracedwithlife]

Is one of those variables how much shit you have to assume to be necessary for life?

We only have one planet to go on and some general idea of what constitutes life. The building-blocks for carbon-based life is quite common actually. Even present on comets.

We only know of life from this planet, so of course estimates like Drake's Equation is an arbitrary assessment of the chance of life arising.

I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.

What's really interesting is the implication God has for us that He would create this entire universe over 13.7 billion years and it all centers on this planet and Mars.

[_Xenu_]

I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.

What you're comfortable with or not comfortable with makes no difference. Your personal preferences can't change the nature of reality, you just think they do because you think the universe is accountable to your conclusions in some way. It isn't.

[gracedwithlife]

I'm comfortable with Hugh Ross' finding of 800 variables required for life to exist and there is not even close to the number of planets in the universe to make that possible.

What you're comfortable with or not comfortable with makes no difference. Your personal preferences can't change the nature of reality, you just think they do because you think the universe is accountable to your conclusions in some way. It isn't.

I didn't see any evidence from you to counter these 800 variables so I will stay with the evidence.

[gracedwithlife]

I should get his new book to see if he has found more variables.

[Hakurei Reimu]

an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened."

You don't need to know exactly when in the past you would "have already happened" only that you would have happened having had an eternity to do so;

Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.

therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Non sequitor.

Your "...would therefore be disqualified" does not follow from "Every point I could happen..."

They do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.

There is indeed something wrong, because obviously you do exist now when you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress was true.

Your incompetence in handling infinity is not a point in your favor.

I am not "believing that an eternal past would have a first point."

Whether or not you postulate it explicitly, you do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the metric structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.

There is no contradiction in infinite regresses, your statement to the contrary notwithstanding.

[gracedwithlife]

an infinite sequence into the past has no beginning at all, so there's no point which you can definitively say that I or anyone else ought to "have already happened."

You don't need to know exactly when in the past you would "have already happened" only that you would have happened having had an eternity to do so;

Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.

The future ahead has no bearing on the ramifications of one's view of the past. When the atheist claims an infinite regress of cause and effects, he needs to think that through to its conclusion, for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Non sequitor.

You weren't able to show it so it stands.

Your "...would therefore be disqualified" does not follow from "Every point I could happen..."

They do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.

You didn't show it.

There is indeed something wrong, because obviously you do exist now when you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so if infinite regress was true.

Your incompetence in handling infinity is not a point in your favor.

Personal attacks show the weakness of your response.

I am not "believing that an eternal past would have a first point."

Whether or not you postulate it explicitly, you do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the field structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.

I don't need a first point, because the atheist says its an infinite regress of cause and effects so there is no first point as there would always be another point before that. But infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so. Scholars widely recognize that an infinite past is just in man's imagination as it is inherently flawed and renders contradictory conclusions, e.g. if there was a past eternity of cause and effects you also should never existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point.

[Plu]

I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.

That's interesting, because we've found a planet with a diameter of 1,4 times Jupiter and that still hasn't turned into a star either.

//http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-largest-planet.html

[gracedwithlife]

That's ok. I am just reporting what the documentary said. 1.4x is not too terribly bigger.

[Plu]

Not to people who don't understand math, no. People who do understand math would realise that at 1.4x bigger diameter has a volume of almost 3 times more. The difference between a sphere with radius 1 and radius 1,4 is huge.

[josephpalazzo]

The problem remains. Infinite regress cannot be true, because if it were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Time for you to come forth with he truth. What do you smoke?

[gracedwithlife]

The problem remains. Infinite regress cannot be true, because if it were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Time for you to come forth with he truth. What do you smoke?

I am quite interested in how you shut your mind and conscience down to this matter...

...If infinite regress were true, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so; so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Wrong. The fact that there lies an eternity ahead of any time that you could choose would nullify the choice by your own postulate. You don't have to choose a specific time, because NONE would work for your purposes. And because NONE work for your purposes, your argument falls into shambles.

The future ahead has no bearing on the ramifications of one's view of the past.

I thought it was clear that I was talking about the eternal past when I said "there lies an eternity ahead of any time." I had temporarily slipped into the Chinese viewpoint, where its the past that lies ahead of you because it's the only part of time you'd be able to see.

When the atheist claims an infinite regress of cause and effects, he needs to think that through to its conclusion,

I have, but unlike you I have the background to handle infinities.

for if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened.

Again, bullshit. Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner. It's an incoherent statement. In an eternity stretching both ways, things happen when they happen, and not a moment before. After all, in an eternity, there's an infinite number of things to do. That's going to take a while.

There's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once. Who says? You? And why? Because you think I have a soul that left all that time ago and is now wherever? I don't think I have a soul. I think I am pure material. Therefore, there is nothing keeping me from happening an infinite number of times. The catch is that there can never be a first of me, and I can never know my own index.

therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Non sequitor.

You weren't able to show it so it stands.

It does not follow that, even if the universe is not infinite into the past, that it has a cause, for causation requires a overarching temporal structure for the universe to exist within, and you have not shown that there is one. The only temporal structure that we know of is the time that is part of the universe, which does not apply outside the universe. Without that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe, even a god. Hence, non sequitor. You need additional assumptions you have not proven to make this work.

They do if we follow your postulate, so because we know that does not follow, your postulate is wrong. QED.

You didn't show it.

I did show it. You're simply too dense to understand.

Personal attacks show the weakness of your response.

It's not an attack. It's an observation. You do not know how to handle infinity. If you did, you would not be blundering along with what amounts to pure rhetoric. You would know exactly what was wrong with your argument from my criticisms and address them, instead of simply trying to blunder along and insist that you are right. If you had any competence, you would know how to counter my criticism, instead of trying to repeat tired appologistics you read off the internet.

Whether or not you postulate it explicitly, you do need a first point to have your argument work. Eternity is not a duration. Only two definite points in time can have a duration between them. If you don't make this assumption, then you destroy the field structure of durations that allows you to compare them and say that I had sufficient time to "already happen." It is a meaningless statement. It only seems compelling to you because you don't have the background to know what a tangled web of concepts and the incongruities you are actually proposing. Infinity is clearly beyond your grasp, so you are in no actual position to say ANYTHING about what is or what is not possible with infinities, even infinite regresses.

I don't need a first point, because the atheist says its an infinite regress of cause and effects so there is no first point as there would always be another point before that. But infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.

Look, chum, I understand your argument, but it's still wrong. By your own argument, nothing can happen, because all of it should have already happened in a distant eternal past. But that runs counter to the hypothesis that there is an infinite chain of cause and effect stretching from an eternal past to an eternal future — there's always something happening in such a universe.

It all boils down to the fact that the statement, "infinite regress is impossible because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so," is an assumption on your part. Things get kinda screwy when you deal with infinity, but on the whole the screwiness is very tame as mathematics goes, and the kinks have been worked out. Not all of your assumptions are going to hold.

Infinity is screwy but self-consistent. There is nothing preventing the universe from having an infinite past in principle; the matter must be decided by evidence. If I happen an infinite number of times, your assertion fails. If the universe simply takes a while to get around to me (owing to the literally infinite number of things to do in that eternity), your assumption fails. Either way, your assertion is wrong.

Scholars widely recognize that an infinite past is just in man's imagination as it is inherently flawed and renders contradictory conclusions, e.g. if there was a past eternity of cause and effects you also should never existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity never reaching this point.

Sorry, but the only "scholars" that matter in this case are the cosmologists, and they absolutely don't see an inherent problem with an infinite past because they know that such a past would be cyclical — much the same things would be happening again and again an infinite number of times in the past. They will decide the issue based on evidence they can gather, not on your philosophical convictions, because those convictions are based on background assumptions that may or may not be true.