Could all life be alien to this planet?

[MrSmith]

Have you read the Sheffield sarcasm thread?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=882444

 

No I can't say that I have.

[0742Sheff]

Haven't you missed something here?

 

I don't think so, no.

[danot]

But they contradict themselves by saying one complex thing needs a creator whilst something more complex doesn't need a creator.

That's because "God" is an alternative theory to the universe magically materializing from nowhere. Personally, I can't comprehend the physical nature of either.

 

Posted by MrSmith

So actually they think more along your train of thought, they can't comprehend that something can exist without being created or caused much like you.

 

I'm having no trouble comprehending the logical reasoning behind either argument, I just find it impossible to comprehend the physical nature of them.

[0742Sheff]

It doesn't work that way. We'd be here for ever if we had to disprove everyone's claim. The onus should be on the person making the claim to prove their hypothesis.

 

People will always try and disprove claims though, and rightly so. If no one tried to disprove any claims, we would always believe every claim ever made.

[MrSmith]

That's because "God" is an alternative theory to the universe magically materializing from nowhere. Personally, I can't comprehend the physical nature of either.

 

 

 

I'm having no trouble comprehending the logical reasoning behind either argument, I just find it impossible to comprehend the physical nature of them.

 

I would say that God isn't a theory.

[danot]

There claim is that the universe was created by God, there reason for thinking this is because it is too complex to exist without a creator.

So if something complex needs a creator it would imply that God needs a creator because God must be more complex than the created. Alternatively the universe is more complex than its creator, which would then mean its creator isn’t a God.

Then again, maybe it is a God.

 

 

Religious people say for something complex to exist it must have a creator. I disagree.

By your own admission, a complex God wouldn't need a creator.

[JFKvsNixon]

People will always try and disprove claims though, and rightly so. If no one tried to disprove any claims, we would always believe every claim ever made.

 

No, you misunderstand. It's fine for people to disprove claims. The way science works, is that somebody makes a hypothesis, and then they have to prove it in a way that is repeatable, so their peers can use their method to check to see if their results are valid.

 

That is how science works to disprove or prove claims, it's certainly not the case that we would believe every claim ever made because the onus was on the person to prove their claim.

[JFKvsNixon]

That's because "God" is an alternative theory to the universe magically materializing from nowhere. Personally, I can't comprehend the physical nature of either.

 

The existence of God or creationism isn't a theory, it's a faith. For the followers of religion it doesn't have to be proved or disproved, it's enough for them for it to be believed.

[MrSmith]

Then again, maybe it is a God.

 

By your own admission, a complex God wouldn't need a creator.

 

Why would something that doesn't exist need a creator.

[danot]

I'm not asking you to accept both of them. I'm asking you whether you agree that one or other of them must be true.

 

EITHER:

 

- Things which exist must of necessity have a cause.

 

OR:

 

- Things can exist without needing a cause.

 

 

Or, if you can think of a third option, to post it. We'll take the discussion from there.

 

I accept that deductive logic will always deduce that things can exist without having a cause. Whether things without a cause do or don't exist is something science is unable to tell us..