Are the odds actually in favor of the notion of a creator , at least as a creator of us , us Earthly
humans ? Maybe not in favor of it but not dismissive of the possibility ? Here's my devil's advocates theory of this argument.
I contend that seeing as how the most likely way that humans will show up on any other habitable planet in our near universe in the future is by having been put there by us that this is generally all that is required given our historical religious experience for ourselves to be considered by the humans that we put on these other planets to declare us to be gods . And
Considering the natural progression of near universe transplants of humans to far universe transplants , doesnt it at some point get difficult to look back from the farthest reaches of our godlike endeavors and point to each planet with humans and say ' all of these planets were seeded with humans by god-like beings except ' that one ' that is called Earth ? Of course , religious god- believers can never accept this rationale of plausibility or even likelihood for god's nature cuz they're too offended by the notion that the requirements for godhood could be much less in actuality than the perfect God that they wish to believe in . But , what if god is one of us , just a slob like one of us ?
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.There seems to be a distinct lack of evidence for this, so I’d say the odds are not in favour.
Denker
Level 7
July 31, 2018
0
Theres a distinct lack of evidence for everything that isnt pursued intellectually or scientifically .
The bible believer will say theres a lack of evidence that the bible is bs but lots of us do know better than that .
"Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?"
p-nullifidian
Level 8
July 30, 2018
1
Life on Earth started around 3.5 billion years ago, then takes billions of years to reach a state of multicellular life. Then due to a extinction event it gave humans a chance at becoming the dominant species. So a human like species planting those first signs of life 3.5 billion years ago is highly improbable. When you look at the evolutionary process higher intelligence is low on the list of traits. Then to plant a whole species and not to continue studies knowing how low the likelihood for intelligence is would seem a bit counterintuitive. The sheer complexity of this senerio makes it a virtualy impossibility.
That being said the amount of sunflowers I see beside the road, shows that intellectual doesn't mean they think about what they are throwing out. So accidentally populating a planet, I might be able to consider that.
Fulishsage
Level 6
July 30, 2018
0
I'm going to have to reconsider the accidental populating. A tardigrade could start the process, which would be multicellular. So getting only one celled organism on a planet at it's lowest form seems pretty unlikely too.
Well the "odds of gods" as typically posited and defined by theists are vanishingly small. The notion that life comes from life is all you're really suggesting and that just kicks the can down the road: where did the FIRST life come from? Even if all life in the universe is the product of some form of panspermia (unlikely in my view, but for the sake of argument) then that's all traceable back to some origin where non-life became life and then you still need some hypothesis for that. Either a crappy one (e.g., creator-god) or one that you could maybe eventually work out a mechanism for (e.g., abiogenesis).
I guess my final question is, what's the point of all these mental gymnastics to try to preserve some concept of the divine? To the point of rendering the label "god" relatively meaningless? What's the attraction to begin with? God is never a necessary entity to explain anything, that I have seen thus far. It never elaborates or clarifies, it always ends up being a hand-waving obfuscation actually.
mordant
Level 8
July 30, 2018
1
We don't have to even ask ' where did the first life come from ' to consider the question I raised .
The purpose of the question ?
To show that the present dominant theory of god is likely entirely flawed ? I think that would be useful to ppl who are trapped in the cult cuz they havent been able to think of a plausible alternative to the omnipotent one ?
@Scottzillyun Well to me the only plausible alternative is that there are no deities at all. I agree with you that some sort of very powerful being who is part of the natural order is far more falsifiable and less unlikely than a supernatural omnipotent deity, but ... in my view, that's not saying much, it's kind of a twice nothing is still nothing sort of thing. If you're looking for something truly different, just lose the god idea altogether.
@Scottzillyun evolution already kinda does that. You really don't have to come up with a crazy senerio if you look at science and the facts it makes the present God hypothesis flawed. (Theory requires a lot of evidence)
Such a difficult question. What was the Prime Mover? Did the universe need one? Were the Anunnaki the aliens who travelled to earth and created people to do their work for them?
My belief is the universe always existed. I think that is what we can't get our heads around. The question has been changed into believers trying to get their heads around God always existing.
brentan
Level 8
July 30, 2018
1
Idk...I just think it seems arrogant of us to think we are so special that we must be the first humans and everything revolves around us .
@Scottzillyun Maybe we're the first. Maybe the only. But we're not a species that has much reason to be arrogant about ourselves. We seriously need to respect the other systems in place around us before we destroy the animal world and ruin our climate.
@janette0343 Hi Janette. Thanks for the compliment but.......are you wearing your glasses?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.