100 billion stars in our own galaxy, 160-500 billion planets and we want to think a god..

[MarkCharles]

looks after us?

Of all the 10,000 plus mammals on the planet Earth, in a galaxy with 160-400 billion planets, in a single galaxy of billions of galaxies, REPEAT, one of billions of galaxies, we are, on that one of billions of galaxies, one of 160 billion to 400 billion planets.


Where is the compelling need to believe in a god that looks out for us, or a god that we 1-3 billion out of 7 billion humans on our planet need to pray to?



If you didn't catch that from Carl Sagan while he was alive, here's a guy destined for that same fame, and about equally educated, to tell you about these one in 1.6 billion planets in the Milky Way, one of billions of galaxies. Just so you know that, since Carl died, the case about religion and a god has become a bit less convincing, based upon the discoveries we have made since Carl Sagan died.

Oh, subscribe to this young guy, (Ph.D.I think, already, at like 23) he talks about science from all over the place, and he needs more subscribers.

[MarkCharles]

1. In case you didn't believe me about this guy's science, and ability to address religious ..

beliefs...

Light Created From Nothing! | Science News

[n2doc]

2. Not to play Devil's advocate, but

What makes you think God is so limited as to only look after one planet? Maybe it is just wishful thinking on our part.....

[Thats my opinion]

3. Any concept of God who is limited to us

and to this mud ball is far too small a reality for anybody to pay attention. Sagan may have tried to corner theists in a tiny notion. But then he was an authority on the cosmos, but I doubt he was an authority on theology.

[MarkCharles]

4. Looking after each of 2 billion out of 7 billion live humans on 1 of 160 Billion Billion planets is

so much easier?

Honestly, I CANNOT understand people who think their individual prayers are ever listened to by their guy in the sky.

But I'm open to logical explanations on this, if someone has one to offer.

[tama]

5. Just an idea

but if one likes, one can consider the omnipotence aspect as multiverse, as the source of potential for every sentient being to experience as many different universes as it wants in as many ways as it wants, and to share those experiences with whom they want.

Also knowing that the size and computation power of computers is not limited by thermodynamics, this view is also compatible with the Matrix-hypothesis.

In other words omnipotent love as "anything you want, baby".
(and if you suffer and complain and blame god or whatever: "hey, you got what you asked, so you can only blame yourself"...

And no, I'm not asking you to believe in this idea, which is just an idea like any other idea, but to just take it into consideration, as far as ideas go.

[humblebum]

10. "I CANNOT understand" it, therefore, it does not exist.

Now that's reasoning to the highest degree. yessiree.

[tama]

12. I read it

as a honest and humble admission and open minded question. And do we all stumble, dear humpetydum humblebum, hum hum hum and doobedoo.

[MarkCharles]

13. Did you ever think that a belief in a god is just maybe a...

mis-programmed sector of the human brain that insists upon going against the 7 billion times a hundred billion billion reasons why no god could possibly oversee the workings of one's own brain?

I have to admit, (not being Mitt Romney nor Warren Buffet, myself) that it's kind of hard to count all the way to a billion in the first place.

If I tried to count to a billion, saying two numbers a second for as many seconds as it would take to get to a billion, let's see, that's

about 16 years going 24 hours a day, without sleep. or 24 years at 16 hours a day, sleeping and eating 8 hours a day, and that's only to ONE billion, another three or four billion would make me 90 years old, if I had started counting from birth. How much time does any god have to spend with one planet out of 160 billion of them, let alone one human being out of 7 billion of them?

[humblebum]

14. That of course would depend upon the qualities that you have ascribed to your god.

Perhaps your conception differs completely from others' conceptions and beliefs, which I have no doubt is the case.

[MarkCharles]

15. Let's see, a god that cannot count to a billion, and created

a hundred billion billion suns and planets capable of supporting life.

I have no "qualities" to ascribe to a mythological figure, I leave that to those that believe in one.

Which, of course, leads to the question:

What is YOUR conception and what are the qualities you yourself ascribe to a god?

I doubt you will answer, but you DID beg the question.

[humblebum]

16. How about a God that is bigger than what you have the capacity to ponder or imagine.

You are still stuck in that single "way of knowing," and it is from that perspective that you judge or assess anything.

[MarkCharles]

17. "a God that is bigger than what you have the capacity to ponder or imagine"? then...

why bother pondering or imagining?

That's the question that is begged by the snide comment "a God that is bigger than what you have the capacity to ponder or imagine".

I guess there's always yet one more closet to hide in when someone questions the existence of a god. But since only humans have the desire or capacity to worship a god, I'd be willing to suggest that the whole god concept is the invention of human minds, there being no evidence whatsoever, from the beginning of the Universe, until now, for any god, at all, other than that which believers can make up and then attest to.

When a single scintilla of evidence comes forward, I'll start believing in a god, just as I would for the Easter Bunny; seemingly neither of which has presented a single scintilla so far, but both are nice to imagine.

[humblebum]

20. "Only humans have the desire or capacity to worship a god," and you know this how? Do

you speak kangaroo, worm, or dolphin? It is like you to pass off your assumptions as objective knowledge.

[MarkCharles]

21. I'm willing to look at any evidence you have to the contrary, but, I'm...

sure you can simply assert that kangaroos or any other animals think about a god because you can assert anything you like about a god, and never require any evidence. That's your special "other way of knowing", in other words, whatever you imagine, just make it up and challenge anyone to prove your imagination wrong.

It's a pretty clear pattern.

Now, as to the question I asked, IF it is beyond human comprehension to fully envision a god, you ducked the question, "why bother"? Instead you went into an entirely new realm of imaginary activity, namely that animals might believe in a god, all without a scintilla of evidence for this imagined phenomenon.

Nice way of dodging the question!

[humblebum]

22. No. What I am saying is just as you claim that deity arises from the mind of man, the bottom line

is that you have no proof. IOW, you and I are in the same boat. You have no proof of your positive assertions, stated as fact.

[MarkCharles]

23. A dodge of the second challenge, NICELY DONE!

Nope, I never assert something without being willing to be challenged by evidence to the contrary. You, on the other hand, never think evidence or lack of evidence should influence your opinions in any way.

Now multiply out for me, a hundred billion times a hundred or two hundred billion, and see how that comes out.

100,000,000,000
x 100,000,000,000
_________________

OK, got that? How many zeros?

[tama]

31. Less zeros

than in Planck energy.

[humblebum]

32. And that proves what? In no way does that conflict with a belief in God.

Unless of course your truncated logic is used. Are you debating mathematics or religious belief?

[mr blur]

33. Does it ever occur to you that "other ways of knowing" is just bullshit

from the same barrel of Woo as Remote Viewing and Telekinesis?

Have you ever thought of actually answering a question put to you in a straightforward way, rather than just using it as an opportunity to try to show how philosophical, deep and enlightened you think you are?

You might find that people would enjoy discussing ideas with you, rather than trying to follow your twisted track of evasions while trying to guess your motivation for posting.

[cleanhippie]

34. Mr Blur, For The Win!!!

[humblebum]

35. You don't even have a clue. All blather. nt

[mr blur]

36. So why not give us a clue, Enlightened One?

Or do you just, like your role model, move in mysterious ways your wonders to perform?

[humblebum]

37. Other "ways of knowing" has been discussed ad nauseum and

needs to be covered no more.

[tama]

30. Would you be

...willing to suggest that the whole mathematics concept is the invention of human minds, there being no evidence whatsoever, from the beginning of the Universe, until now, for any mathematics at all, other than that which believers can make up and then attest to?

[humblebum]

6. And this conflicts with belief in a deity how? nt

[MarkCharles]

18. "Conflicts"? No science is not in CONFLICT with anything

But science sure makes it more difficult to believe some god is watching over us all.

And the next question science begs for those believers, WHY would a god need to watch over us and


Why would a god need to be believed in?

[humblebum]

19. I give up. You're the one who says he can't be taught anything new, so

you answer those questions.

[MarkCharles]

24. As a non-believer, I don't need to answer questions like that. But...

believers might want to challenge their convictions by answering, I see you declined.

So...

Maybe you're not such a committed believer, after all, seeing you don't see any immediate answers to these begging questions.

IF one chooses to believe, wouldn't one want to have immediate answers to these questions?

Why would a god need to be believed in? or Why would a god need to look over us?

[humblebum]

25. Yes, in fact you do need to answer if you claim objective proof. I don't claim

objective proof to anything. Only subjective. The burden IS on you. Otherwise, admit that you do not know. It is your only possible answer.

[MarkCharles]

26. Do I need to answer questions about the Easter Bunny, too? Because...

I don't believe in that guy either.

So I need to answer any possible question of logic for everything I don't believe in? That's a refreshing lack of logic right there!

Why not just admit it, you're stumped about something that should be obvious to any true believer. So I really question you about your dedication to your beliefs, and you strike out with this silliness, I need to answer questions that make sense only to people that believe, and questions that are obviously answered to non-believers by a simple phrase you won't want to state.

[humblebum]

27. "something that should be obvious to any true believer." - no one

I know has all answers. And you never claimed the Easter Bunny existed, BUT we know that animals exist, for which we have objective proof, but you also said they have no capacity to believe. So, how do you know that? Oh yeh. I forgot, you know everything.

[MarkCharles]

28. I know that I know NOTHING! but YOU have "other ways of knowing" that

mean YOUR knowledge is better than anyone else's. I've seen you state this over and over.

Easter Bunny or a god, equal amounts of proof, but you choose one over the other. And offer no reason why you made such a choice.

Then the questions I ask, met with your continuous aggressive personal assaults upon the person that asked the questions. But no desire to answer? Interesting!


I know absolutely NOTHING, and all I do is ask questions as a way of finding something to know. Most of the time, the best answers I get about knowledge are from science, the worst from religious folks. But I leave the option open, if religion can come up with some knowledge, (I kind of doubt it), then I will be there, but so far, the worst answers and the most evasions to the questions I ask come from religious folks.

[humblebum]

29. "YOUR knowledge is better than anyone else's. I've seen you state this over and over." Show

where I have ever said that. I stated that other ways exist, but never that they are any better or worse, merely different. Your avoidance is all too obvious as you cannot back up your claims. You see EVERYTHING through your narrow POV and condemn others who don't share that POV.

[Angry Dragon]

7. But he/she likes us best because

we have sports and the others don't

[tama]

8. When I was very worried about our future

and angry at the mankind for the ugly mess we are making, I found much solace in the idea that the Forest would loose much of itself without our laughter, dance and song. That our music brings much beauty in this universe, and do we need a higher purpose than that?

Dinosaurs evolved into beings that can fly and fill the forests with their singing, in praise of being. Are we much different?

[pokerfan]

9. That's 20 to 70 planets for every person on this planet

I will settle for just one nice little blue planet in some uncharted backwater of some unfashionable end of an unremarkable spiral arm in the habitable zone of a small unregarded yellow star.

Online poker will be legal there. Hell, everything will be legal there except for one caveat: I'm not wiccan but the governing rule will be: "And it harm none, do what ye will." Hurting yourself won't be against the law. Hurting yourself isn't sinful; just stupid. Believe in twenty gods, believe in no gods; it's all good.

[laconicsax]

11. If anything, this supports the LDS belief that men can become the god of their own planet.

Looks like there're plenty to go around.