Bolder-dash writes:
What you are trying to call evidence for anything is actually just speculation.
Why is the existence of physical life not evidence that there could be more physical life? Obviously it's not proof that there's life out there. All it says is that there could be life out there. If life is possible here, even under inhospitable terrestrial conditions, obviously it would be possible in other places under identical conditions.
Bolder-dash writes:
First you can speculate that abiogenesis is possible without having the slightest bit of evidence that it is. What makes you think this is even possible?
Even if I didn't think there was a good explanation for how life could have begun by natural means, and even if I then took the enormous leap of faith to believe in a completely unevidenced meta-physical creator, that still would not be a case against extra-terrestrial life. Surely a creator not bound by physical laws could have created life wherever he wanted, throughout the cosmos. With magic, suddenly life becomes even more probable, and even more likely to be found elsewhere.
I'm surprised that you'd limit a vast creative intelligence, capable of creating the universe, to creating life on a single planet. No matter what my position on the existence of magical creators (I'm an agnostic by the way), the evidence at hand would still suggest that life is probably out there.
Bolder-dash writes:
Anything other than your faith?
What faith?
Bolder-dash writes:
Trying to make an argument that there is more evidence for alien life than for a force that created the cosmos, that created gravity, and energy, and atomic forces, and heat and cold and thermo dynamics....just is not a very strong argument
First you'd have to show why these things necessarily had to be created. Gravity is extremely simple. As are energy, atomic forces, heat, cold and thermo dynamics. All of these are the outcomes of some extremely simple properties of the universe. Heat and cold are merely differences in potential and kinetic energies between particles (I think), and the laws of thermodynamics were created by people to describe how heat behaves.
There's no need to postulate a creator until there's at least some reason to assume anything had to be created.
Bolder-dash writes:
In order to believe that you have to believe that all of the forces of the universe just poofed out by arbitrary chaos. That's a big stretch.
Not as big a stretch as postulating the existence of an even more complex meta-physical being. (By the way, I don't believe that everything was "poofed" out of "arbitrary chaos")
Bolder-dash writes:
It is an argument that can only be made by someone who WANTS a particular outcome.
I would be fine with an Intelligent Creator if I had any evidence whatsoever to believe in one. After all, I believed in one my whole life, up until a little while ago.
Bolder-dash writes:
Why is your speculation that it 'must be' valid only in this instance and not in others where it is not convenient.
But I'm not making any exceptions. If there were evidence of meta-physical beings on earth, and if they were shown to be capable of creating and altering the universe, then I should have less reservations about believing in one.
Bolder-dash writes:
It is really an indefensible position, but as I said, I can understand where it comes from.
Really? From agnosticism? Do explain.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.