Does life have value?

Originally posted by apathist

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you believe in a common ancestor for all life, than the countess things
that could go wrong with any species must have never occurred for the longest time to
life, you think that is possible?

I would say no, die-offs must be pretty routine.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-w ...[text shortened]... c - probably it was developing in many different environments around the globe. Sea-vents, even.

For the sake of argument say it happen several times, that doesn't change the fact that
each time if occurred the dangers were still there they didn't just go away. Each time it
occurs is a leap of faith to believe, when you realize the whole universe had to be lined up
just right for that to happen once, let a lone several times before one of them got lucky
for a few million of years without dying off to start mutating into something else that would
also share all of the dangers of being wiped out by some danger.

Originally posted by apathist
If knowledge must be absolute, then you're right. But then you don't know if you are really alive and on earth! We could be a virtual simulation in a machine and the 'real reality' is entirely different then we think. The old brain-in-a-jar or the Matrix philosophy problem. Fun stuff!

Your second point is unlikely to be true, but then I just saw Kong Skull Island.

I don't believe knowledge must be absolute, but if it isn't, than we need to admit it isn't.
if you want to play the virtual world simulation machine debate, than why not play God
created it all debate, and accept that? The matrix, Doctor Who, and several others with
virtual reality themes in them, as whole or in part all have someone setting down the rules
for the universe they create. Why does it have to be virtual?

Originally posted by KellyJay
For the sake of argument say it happen several times, that doesn't change the fact that
each time if occurred the dangers were still there they didn't just go away. Each time it
occurs is a leap of faith to believe, when you realize the whole universe had to be lined up
just right for that to happen once, let a lone several times before one of them got luck ...[text shortened]... ing into something else that would
also share all of the dangers of being wiped out by some danger.

Yeah, pretty amazing and unlikely. But the earth is over four billion years old. Roll 100 dice enough times and eventually they'll all come up sixes. Plus obviously as the first life started to develop it must have happy with the environment at the time. I mean they weren't delicate, they were robust.

Life in general, once it began to appear and still today, is very tenacious.

Originally posted by KellyJay
For the sake of argument say it happen several times, that doesn't change the fact that
each time if occurred the dangers were still there they didn't just go away. Each time it
occurs is a leap of faith to believe, when you realize the whole universe had to be lined up
just right for that to happen once, let a lone several times before one of them got l ...[text shortened]... into something else that would
also share all of the dangers of being wiped out by some danger.

You clearly don't understand basic probability. There are two factors in any probability calculation: number of events and frequency of events. You are ignoring one factor and thus getting the wrong answer.

Many life forms reproduce by having a vast number of progeny. Take a typical tree for example. They produce thousands to millions of seeds. The probability of each one finding the perfect conditions to grow is remarkably low. And if we were to take your argument to heart we would conclude that one needs a leap of faith to think that a tree would have even a single progeny. But we all know that most tree species are doing quite well demonstrating the rather obvious flaw in your argument.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't believe knowledge must be absolute, but if it isn't, than we need to admit it isn't.
if you want to play the virtual world simulation machine debate, than why not play God
created it all debate, and accept that? The matrix, Doctor Who, and several others with
virtual reality themes in them, as whole or in part all have someone setting down the rules
for the universe they create. Why does it have to be virtual?

I've asked you how you rate theories. I've explored the subject a bit. Basically. I agree with  Marcello Truzzi: An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by apathist
Yeah, pretty amazing and unlikely. But the earth is over four [b]billion years old. Roll 100 dice enough times and eventually they'll all come up sixes. Plus obviously as the first life started to develop it must have happy with the environment at the time. I mean they weren't delicate, they were robust.

Life in general, once it began to appear and still today, is very tenacious.[/b]

You don't know how old the earth is and on top of that, that doesn't help your cause.
For life to begin here, all of the pieces have to be in place. If the ingredients are here to
make life, they all must be in the right place, at the right time, mixed the right way, and
so on. If you wipe out anything that is required because things were not mixed properly
having more time doesn't fix that! If your plant isn't someplace that allows things to reside
without being destroyed, having more time doesn't fix that. Time doesn't give you the
ability to fix something that can only be done one, it doesn't give you allow you do overs
if it was done wrong. Suggesting you had more time to get something done right while
it could be a one and done event adds nothing to the equation. If there was more time
than you also have MAINTAIN things longer, having all 6's show up once isn't the only
thing required, once something lives, if its wiped out having more time only means it stays
dead longer.

Originally posted by KellyJay
... If there was more time
than you also have MAINTAIN things longer, having all 6's show up once isn't the only
thing required, once something lives, if its wiped out having more time only means it stays
dead longer.

You make the Argument from incredulity, also known as the Argument from personal incredulity or the Argument from ignorance or the appeal to ignorance. This is a well-known logical fallacy. I don't know how to fix this for you except:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination

I know what its like to suffer from this. Good reading and good luck!

Originally posted by karoly aczel

After all your bluster you fail to see the connection others have with their own beliefs.
We respect your Christianity ,

Oh, the "ANITY" thing.

1.) Did I say I had Christianity ?
2.) Did I say the Christianity I have you should respect.

I've been talking about Christ. The word "Christianity" creates no warm fuzzy in me.

don't belittle our beliefs because you cannot reconcile them with your own.

Dude - he said "magical sky daddy".
So let him taste a little of his own medicine.

Magical rock daddy that got naturally selected somehow into an inquisitive mind exploring the nature of the reality and the universe.

Seems you only value human life that agrees with you , otherwise yo have utter disdain for anyone who doesn't put Christ on a pedestal like you.

No, it tells me that God created MAN in His image.
That means to me man Christians and man non-believers in Christ.

That is in the original creation. Dignity, honor, great worth upon man as a whole there.

Now ... Jesus on a pedestal:

Jesus, I take to be NORMAL.
Jesus, I take to be a testament to how LOW all the rest of us have FALLEN.

Rather than Jesus being an enigma I take Jesus as the most normal man.
And that is a man thoroughly united with God.

In one sense we might see Jesus Christ as ABOVE the standard.
But actually Jesus Christ is right AT the standard.
Normal is Jesus Christ.

One caveat: However ONLY Jesus Christ could accomplish redemption for us all. So in that sense He is the ONLY one Who has that office.

But on another level NORMAL .... is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is what God the Creator originally meant by human being, by "man".
The problem is that all of us, the rest of us, have fallen so far below normality into abnormality.

Originally posted by apathist
You make the Argument from incredulity, also known as the Argument from personal incredulity or the Argument from ignorance or the appeal to ignorance. This is a well-known logical fallacy. I don't know how to fix this for you except:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argu ...[text shortened]... y.2FLack_of_imagination

I know what its like to suffer from this. Good reading and good luck!

Why don't you try addressing the points, if they are weak blow them out of the water with
your arguments, if you cannot I guess taking a shot at me and leaving is your next best
choice.

Originally posted by sonship

After all your bluster you fail to see the connection others have with their own beliefs.
We respect your Christianity ,

Oh, the [b]"ANITY" thing.

1.) Did I say I had Christianity ?
2.) Did I say the Christianity I have you should respect.

I've been talking about Christ. The word "Christianity" creates no warm fuzzy i ...[text shortened]... problem is that all of us, the rest of us, have fallen so far below normality into abnormality.[/b]

"Dude - he said "magical sky daddy". So let him taste a little of his own medicine."


Is that you demonstrating 'turning the other cheek?'

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why don't you try addressing the points

But I did, and you merely restated yourself without addressing my points. That's how it seemed to me. I guess you aren't going to read the links so that you can avoiding making that fallacy I mentioned. You haven't looked at any of the links I've provided, have you. So we are spinning wheels.

Look, try restating a point you'd like to see addressed. Not long paragraphs full of many points, but a focused query.

Originally posted by apathist
But I did, and you merely restated yourself without addressing my points. That's how it seemed to me. I guess you aren't going to read the links so that you can avoiding making that fallacy. You haven't looked at any of the links I've provided, have you. So we are spinning wheels.

Look, try restating a point you'd like to see addressed. Not long paragraphs full of many points, but a focused query.

If I wanted links, I would go look for them, here I'm looking for opinions.

Originally posted by apathist
But I did, and you merely restated yourself without addressing my points. That's how it seemed to me. I guess you aren't going to read the links so that you can avoiding making that fallacy I mentioned. You haven't looked at any of the links I've provided, have you. So we are spinning wheels.

Look, try restating a point you'd like to see addressed. Not long paragraphs full of many points, but a focused query.

If you have a mixture of ingredients to make something, and if you mix them wrong you lose
them, because they turn into something else. Would having more time help you, if it is not
done right the first time?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I wanted links, I would go look for them,

Do you realize how that sounds?

here I'm looking for opinions.
And you got them. And then you object by asking questions, which is cool. Information providing explanation is ignored. Which is not cool.

Originally posted by apathist
Do you realize how that sounds?

[b]here I'm looking for opinions.
And you got them. And then you object by asking questions, which is cool. Information providing explanation is ignored. Which is not cool.[/b]

I have looked up links in the past by those who have given me explanations on why they
believe the things they do. Typically that is after a discussion where we have aired out
our points and they want me to see something more in-depth. If your points are all read
these links, I have no idea what your views are, and for all I know you really don't have
any, instead you just googled something someone said, skimmed them thinking they
sound good. Then you thought you could post them and end the discussion, instead of
showing you have not really thought about this stuff before.

I noticed the one point I made wasn't addressed yet as you requested. Do you plan on
answering it soon?