POLL: Is there a God ??

[SDC888]

My favorite LZ song has always been
“Ramble On”

I like how, funnily, page squirmed at plant's random interjections of Tolkein's LOTR like he does in that song.

Incidentally...

I never liked fiction and didn't read it for pleasure much as a kid (still don't to this day, I much prefer nonfiction), but Tolkein's work is an allegory of Christianity. There are deep, profound fundamental truths which imho are only addressed by Him such that his work could only be produced by a Christian living in a Christian milieu.

 

[megablue]

I like how, funnily, page squirmed at plant's random interjections of Tolkein's LOTR like he does in that song.

Incidentally...

I never liked fiction and didn't read it for pleasure much as a kid (still don't to this day, I much prefer nonfiction), but Tolkein's work is an allegory of Christianity. There are deep, profound fundamental truths which imho are only addressed by Him such that his work could only be produced by a Christian living in a Christian milieu.

Thanks for the reply ... much obliged ...

 

[megablue]

I like how, funnily, page squirmed at plant's random interjections of Tolkein's LOTR like he does in that song.

Incidentally...

I never liked fiction and didn't read it for pleasure much as a kid (still don't to this day, I much prefer nonfiction), but Tolkein's work is an allegory of Christianity. There are deep, profound fundamental truths which imho are only addressed by Him such that his work could only be produced by a Christian living in a Christian milieu.

SCD ... In a short follow-up to your mention of Plant. You may already know, my guess is that you do, but Plant was not Page's first choice for a singer for the band. It was Terry Reid. He was busy and suggested Plant for the spot, along with John Bonham as drummer. Reid was well-respected back in the day. I have several cd's and like his music and voicings ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Reid

now ... back to our regular programming !!

 

[Beatle Bum]

Your question is a thoughtful and interesting one. For me, I don’t believe in a soul, ghosts or spirits. But, many (if not most) people do, of course.

Here is an older piece that seems to be somewhat related to your question:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/biocentrism/201112/does-the-soul-exist-evidence-says-yes

Also, belief in ghosts has been around for ages. I think they are also somewhat related to your question:

https://www.livescience.com/26697-are-ghosts-real.html

Googling “Is God a Spirit” provides many links, as I’m sure you already know. It seems the vast majority are affirmative and based on scripture.

You don’t have to believe in a soul to believe that there is something that exceeds the physical.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Very good and timely, substantive good-faith discussion between an agnostic youtuber and Christian mathematician

I am circling back to this incredible discussion, because I don’t think we would see as many of the cliched arguments here (ie “god of the gaps”) if people listened to a little higher level discussion. This agnostic is not a believer, but he facilitates a discussion that exceeds the sort of petty dismissiveness we have sometimes seen in this thread.

 

[SDC888]

 

[AmericanDragon]

Nope, and religion was created to control the vulnerable and gullible

 

[cole854]

Nope, and religion was created to control the vulnerable and gullible

Well, I guess the majority of the world is vulnerable and gullible.

 

[AmericanDragon]

Well, I guess the majority of the world is vulnerable and gullible.

If there is anything I have learned from social media, the gullible part at least seems likely very accurate.

 

[SDC888]

 

[WildcatFan1982]

better poll: should handbells be banned from church?

 

[megablue]

Regardless of your beliefs about God, here's an amazing thought to consider, according to Brian Greene, Physicist:

"If the whole universe were scaled down to the size of the Earth, the observable universe would probably be much smaller than a grain of sand."

 

[Beatle Bum]

She addresses the weakness of this faith in the scientific method concerning truth.

 

[KenTucker]

Regardless of your beliefs about God, here's an amazing thought to consider, according to Brian Greene, Physicist:

"If the whole universe were scaled down to the size of the Earth, the observable universe would probably be much smaller than a grain of sand."

The observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. The entire universe is, according to Inflation Theory, 10^20 times larger than the observable universe.

It’s so big that we can’t definitively determine its shape with current technology. Our best efforts say that it’s flat. That would mean it’s infinite, which is not logical. Nature loves a sphere and I think we’ll eventually be able to see that it is that shape.

It’s so big that the idea we’re the only civilization is almost laughable. Certainly it seems that life is ubiquitous wherever the conditions exist for it to arise.

It’s so big as to preclude a creator that wanted to make a species in its image on one tiny, minuscule planet.

 

[Brushy Bill]

 

[SDC337]

The observable universe is 93 billion light years in diameter. The entire universe is, according to Inflation Theory, 10^20 times larger than the observable universe.

It’s so big that we can’t definitively determine its shape with current technology. Our best efforts say that it’s flat. That would mean it’s infinite, which is not logical. Nature loves a sphere and I think we’ll eventually be able to see that it is that shape.

It’s so big that the idea we’re the only civilization is almost laughable. Certainly it seems that life is ubiquitous wherever the conditions exist for it to arise.

It’s so big as to preclude a creator that wanted to make a species in its image on one tiny, minuscule planet.

At the risk of defaulting "to a posture of intellectual superiority, all while sidestepping nuance and avoiding actual discussion" (one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever had thrown at me), you have absolutely no reason to conlcude what you do. "Your" reasoning is critically flaed. IT's indeed completely logically fallacious.

It is not certain that life is ubiquitous wherever the conditions exist for it to to arise. We know that to be true only here on Earth, which is a sample size of one. In no way does that say anything about anywhere else. Indeed, we have absolutely zero understanding of the likelihood of life spontaneously arising from a given set of conditions. Neither does the vastness of space say anything about the likelihood of life, nor "preclude a creator;" that's all completely a non sequitur as well.

This is, yet again, another one of your (general) reasons for unbelief which aren't actually reasons/reasoned.

 

[KenTucker]

At the risk of defaulting "to a posture of intellectual superiority, all while sidestepping nuance and avoiding actual discussion" (one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever had thrown at me), you have absolutely no reason to conlcude what you do. "Your" reasoning is critically flaed. IT's indeed completely logically fallacious.

It is not certain that life is ubiquitous wherever the conditions exist for it to to arise. We know that to be true only here on Earth, which is a sample size of one. In no way does that say anything about anywhere else. Indeed, we have absolutely zero understanding of the likelihood of life spontaneously arising from a given set of conditions. Neither does the vastness of space say anything about the likelihood of life, nor "preclude a creator;" that's all completely a non sequitur as well.

This is, yet again, another one of your (general) reasons for unbelief which aren't actually reasons/reasoned.

I don’t have reasons for “unbelief.” They’re not necessary. On the contrary, I would think that reasons to believe would be necessary.

Given that none of these reasons are of a natural state, a “supernatural” state must be recognized by the believer. The supernatural state can only exist and be maintained within the human brain.

Also given that each brain is highly individualistic in its functions, one can say that there are as many gods as there are believers in them. Like fingerprints, no two are the same.

 

[Beatle Bum]

At the risk of defaulting "to a posture of intellectual superiority, all while sidestepping nuance and avoiding actual discussion" (one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever had thrown at me), you have absolutely no reason to conlcude what you do. "Your" reasoning is critically flaed. IT's indeed completely logically fallacious.

It is not certain that life is ubiquitous wherever the conditions exist for it to to arise. We know that to be true only here on Earth, which is a sample size of one. In no way does that say anything about anywhere else. Indeed, we have absolutely zero understanding of the likelihood of life spontaneously arising from a given set of conditions. Neither does the vastness of space say anything about the likelihood of life, nor "preclude a creator;" that's all completely a non sequitur as well.

This is, yet again, another one of your (general) reasons for unbelief which aren't actually reasons/reasoned.

It is interesting that science once thought the universe was filled with life. The more we learn about the improbability of life, the more we have begun to suggest earth may be alone, if not exponentially rare, notwithstanding all of the UFO belief.

 

[warrior-cat]

Nope, and religion was created to control the vulnerable and gullible

False.

 

[KenTucker]

It is interesting that science once thought the universe was filled with life. The more we learn about the improbability of life, the more we have begun to suggest earth may be alone, if not exponentially rare, notwithstanding all of the UFO belief.

The more we learn about the improbability of life

Why do you say this? All of the bloggers that I follow, such as Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson, think that life is likely wherever conditions for it are present. I don’t know of any that think habitable planets are rare.

If you had said that intelligent life is rare, then I would agree with you. There are just too many filters that the evolution of intelligence must pass through for it to be common. I agree with Brian Cox who says that he thinks there may be only one or just a few in each galaxy.

But life in general? It should be common. If we are able to discover another abiogenesis in our solar system, such as life on Europa, then we can feel confidant that it is.

 

[SDC337]

Because the more we actually understand about biology and biochemistry, the less probable abiogenesis is, not the more likely. The more we know, the more inexplicable it is, the more miraculous it becomes.

But if we found life somewhere else in the solar system, provided it wasn't the same as life here (i.e. it was what seeded life here via asteroid, some chunk kicked from there to here), then it would mean life must be basically everywhere plausible. If that were true, then however slim the proability of intelligent life mayb e through evolution of whatever "filters" there may be, intelligent life must be necessarily everywhere you point in the sky. If that in turn were true, then we would've detected its presence.

And if an astrophysicist (who does popularization over academic work, so is incentivized to be "interesting" over accurate) says they think life likely exist elsehwere, then that doesn't make it any more plausible. IT's not a scientific claim simply because a scientist makes it, but a guess and only a guess, a wild assp guess. It seems to me like you only find reasons necessary to believe something that you already want to believe, and if some authority tells you it's true like a Cox or Tyson, then it's likely true. Sounds a lot to me like the criticism you people (ignorantly/mistakenly) levy at Believers.

 

[SDC337]

False.

It;s a psychological projection, a rationalization...

 

[Beatle Bum]

Why do you say this? All of the bloggers that I follow, such as Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson, think that life is likely wherever conditions for it are present. I don’t know of any that think habitable planets are rare.

If you had said that intelligent life is rare, then I would agree with you. There are just too many filters that the evolution of intelligence must pass through for it to be common. I agree with Brian Cox who says that he thinks there may be only one or just a few in each galaxy.

But life in general? It should be common. If we are able to discover another abiogenesis in our solar system, such as life on Europa, then we can feel confidant that it is.

We have never found abiogenesis in the universe. “Life wherever conditions for it are present.” I think the necessary conditions or factors for life are numerous and not linear or merely cumulative. It’s easy to say we think life must exist because the universe is vast and mathematically we suspect life supporting systems must exist. Yet, right now, we know of one planet in one solar system.

 

[KenTucker]

Because the more we actually understand about biology and biochemistry, the less probable abiogenesis is, not the more likely. The more we know, the more inexplicable it is, the more miraculous it becomes.

But if we found life somewhere else in the solar system, provided it wasn't the same as life here (i.e. it was what seeded life here via asteroid, some chunk kicked from there to here), then it would mean life must be basically everywhere plausible. If that were true, then however slim the proability of intelligent life mayb e through evolution of whatever "filters" there may be, intelligent life must be necessarily everywhere you point in the sky. If that in turn were true, then we would've detected its presence.

And if an astrophysicist (who does popularization over academic work, so is incentivized to be "interesting" over accurate) says they think life likely exist elsehwere, then that doesn't make it any more plausible. IT's not a scientific claim simply because a scientist makes it, but a guess and only a guess, a wild assp guess. It seems to me like you only find reasons necessary to believe something that you already want to believe, and if some authority tells you it's true like a Cox or Tyson, then it's likely true. Sounds a lot to me like the criticism you people (ignorantly/mistakenly) levy at Believers.

Circular thinking is a defect in reasoning because it undermines attempts to justify a claim or action. It's based on a trick or confusion where the conclusion is true because the premise is true. For example, "My car is hot so I know it's hot outside and I know it's hot outside because my car is hot". Another example is "Alkaline water is healthy because it results in health benefits, and it has health benefits because it is healthy.”

 

[KenTucker]

We have never found abiogenesis in the universe. “Life wherever conditions for it are present.” I think the necessary conditions or factors for life are numerous and not linear or merely cumulative. It’s easy to say we think life must exist because the universe is vast and mathematically we suspect life supporting systems must exist. Yet, right now, we know of one planet in one solar system.

Even with just a data set of one and math that supports the likelihood of extraterrestrial life elsewhere, I think we can expect to find unique abiogenesis outside our solar system. Earth proves that it can happen and the math proves there are countless candidate planets and moons where it may have also happened.

 

[SDC337]

Even with just a data set of one and math that supports the likelihood of extraterrestrial life elsewhere, I think we can expect to find unique abiogenesis outside our solar system. Earth proves that it can happen and the math proves there are countless candidate planets and moons where it may have also happened.

...

 

[Beatle Bum]

Circular thinking is a defect in reasoning because it undermines attempts to justify a claim or action. It's based on a trick or confusion where the conclusion is true because the premise is true. For example, "My car is hot so I know it's hot outside and I know it's hot outside because my car is hot". Another example is "Alkaline water is healthy because it results in health benefits, and it has health benefits because it is healthy.”

Abiogenesis is real because we have life. We have life because of abiogenesis.

Even with just a data set of one and math that supports the likelihood of extraterrestrial life elsewhere, I think we can expect to find unique abiogenesis outside our solar system. Earth proves that it can happen and the math proves there are countless candidate planets and moons where it may have also happened.

False.

 

[SDC337]

 

[cole@854]

On the contrary, I would think that reasons to believe would be necessary.

Given that none of these reasons are of a natural state,

Reason of a natural state: Life.

Look around you and you will see this. It isn't complicated. In fact, it is rather simplistic, that is, until you start to attempt to dissect it which only serves to make it a convoluted mess without any supporting substance.

 

[Johnnie Africa]

Still waiting for someone to explain the “pillars of creation” to me in here. A cosmic star forming region close to us.

 

[KenTucker]

Reason of a natural state: Life.

Look around you and you will see this. It isn't complicated. In fact, it is rather simplistic, that is, until you start to attempt to dissect it which only serves to make it a convoluted mess without any supporting substance.

On the contrary, dissecting shows what life is made of and how it functions. Life is not a mystery or a miracle. When you look at the basics of life you see that it is just very complex chemical reactions. Chemical evolution began on the early earth and quickly evolved into biology, becoming the highest order of chemistry.

 

[KenTucker]

Abiogenesis is real because we have life. We have life because of abiogenesis.

False.

Are quips all that you’re going to give me?

 

[KenTucker]

Still waiting for someone to explain the “pillars of creation” to me in here. A cosmic star forming region close to us.

It’s a gas and dust cloud in the shape of pillars 7,000 light years from earth. Many stars are forming in the cloud as denser areas collapse under the effect of gravity. There are many similar dust clouds in the Milky Way. This one became famous after being photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1994. I have a big poster of the pillars in my den. It’s one of my favorite Hubble photos.

 

[Beatle Bum]

On the contrary, dissecting shows what life is made of and how it functions. Life is not a mystery or a miracle. When you look at the basics of life you see that it is just very complex chemical reactions. Chemical evolution began on the early earth and quickly evolved into biology, becoming the highest order of chemistry.

What is consciousness?

 

[Beatle Bum]

Are quips all that you’re going to give me?

Provide us with some evidence and we can discuss. There is no evidence for abiogenesis beyond what you call a quip (circular logic based on faith). So, acting like there may be planets with the right environment for abiogenesis is nonsensical. It’s a theory that has never been proven given ANY environmental conditions absent a human guiding the process.

 

[Johnnie Africa]

It’s a gas and dust cloud in the shape of pillars 7,000 light years from earth. Many stars are forming in the cloud as denser areas collapse under the effect of gravity. There are many similar dust clouds in the Milky Way. This one became famous after being photographed by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1994. I have a big poster of the pillars in my den. It’s one of my favorite Hubble photos.

But it’s where stars are made, potentially where life is made. How long has it been there? How long will it last? What caused it to come together? Lots of basic questions about it that seem to be beyond human comprehension. Just like you I find it very interesting. Lots of amazing and incredible stuff out there, most of which we’re not even anywhere near aware of. Also find it amusing when people talk confidently about any of it.

 

[KenTucker]

Provide us with some evidence and we can discuss. There is no evidence for abiogenesis beyond what you call a quip (circular logic based on faith). So, acting like there may be planets with the right environment for abiogenesis is nonsensical. It’s a theory that has never been proven given ANY environmental conditions absent a human guiding the process.

Well, that’s better than “false.” Not much, though.
Are you one of those if-I-didn’t-see-it-,-it-didn’t-happen thinkers?

acting like there may be planets with the right environment for abiogenesis is nonsensical.

No, it isn’t. It’s a projection based upon observations. Nearly 6,000 exoplanets have been detected to date and 20% of the Sun-like stars have rocky planets within their habitable zones. If we project those numbers on the entire Milky Way, we can expect there are about 30 billion earth-like planets in our galaxy.

That’s a lot. So, the chances of life originating on any of them is significant since they are in solar systems with a sun-like star, have a composition similar to earth and orbit within the habitable zone.

 

[SDC337]

Well, that’s better than “false.” Not much, though.
Are you one of those if-I-didn’t-see-it-,-it-didn’t-happen thinkers?


No, it isn’t. It’s a projection based upon observations. Nearly 6,000 exoplanets have been detected to date and 20% of the Sun-like stars have rocky planets within their habitable zones. If we project those numbers on the entire Milky Way, we can expect there are about 30 billion earth-like planets in our galaxy.

That’s a lot. So, the chances of life originating on any of them is significant since they are in solar systems with a sun-like star, have a composition similar to earth and orbit within the habitable zone.

What you don't understand is that none of that is reason to conclude what you do, even Cox and Tyson would be forced to admit this to you.. THere's absolutley no way of us knowing anythhing about any "chances" of life originating anwywhere: zero, zip, zilch, nada. Agan, they are wild-arse guessing, not making scientific claims.

The same criticism you (general atheists) levy at Intelligent Design, namely that it is untestable, no defined scientific mechanism) can be equally applied to abiogenesis. THe critical difference though is that the former is an inference from observation, while the latter is a conclusion in search of a justification.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say some quantum computer AI advancement thingamajig occurs in your lifetime where the computer crunches the numbers and proves life from matter biochemically impossible, what's your response?

 

[megablue]

Well, that’s better than “false.” Not much, though.
Are you one of those if-I-didn’t-see-it-,-it-didn’t-happen thinkers?


No, it isn’t. It’s a projection based upon observations. Nearly 6,000 exoplanets have been detected to date and 20% of the Sun-like stars have rocky planets within their habitable zones. If we project those numbers on the entire Milky Way, we can expect there are about 30 billion earth-like planets in our galaxy.

That’s a lot. So, the chances of life originating on any of them is significant since they are in solar systems with a sun-like star, have a composition similar to earth and orbit within the habitable zone.

Ken Tucker ... I'm not scientifically literate enough to join in these exchanges, but I find them very interesting to read and consider.
I've seen recent news about K2-18b, which has been recently picked up by the JWST to help confirm earlier imagery and theses from 2015.

Below is a cut-and-past AI Overview, fwiw:
"K2-18b is a super-Earth exoplanet, located 124 light-years away in the constellation Leo, and is known for being within the habitable zone of its star, a cool red dwarf. Recent studies have detected potential signs of life on the planet, specifically the presence of methane and carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, and also possible hints of dimethyl sulfide, a molecule produced by life on Earth. However, these findings are still under investigation and some scientists express skepticism."

Webb Discovers Methane, Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere of K2-18 b - NASA

A new investigation with NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope into K2-18 b, an exoplanet 8.6 times as massive as Earth, has revealed the presence of

www.nasa.gov

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/science/k218b-studies-planet-habitability#:~:text=Located%20124%20light%2Dyears%20from,place%20beyond%20our%20solar%20system.

Just curious ... are you, and others here, familiar with K2-18b and the prospects for life there ??
If so, I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks, in advance, to all who care to share regarding this relatively recent discovery.

Carry on ...

 

[crashtestdummy_rivals61973]

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

 

[KenTucker]

What you don't understand is that none of that is reason to conclude what you do, even Cox and Tyson would be forced to admit this to you.. THere's absolutley no way of us knowing anythhing about any "chances" of life originating anwywhere: zero, zip, zilch, nada. Agan, they are wild-arse guessing, not making scientific claims.

The same criticism you (general atheists) levy at Intelligent Design, namely that it is untestable, no defined scientific mechanism) can be equally applied to abiogenesis. THe critical difference though is that the former is an inference from observation, while the latter is a conclusion in search of a justification.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say some quantum computer AI advancement thingamajig occurs in your lifetime where the computer crunches the numbers and proves life from matter biochemically impossible, what's your response?

What you don't understand is that none of that is reason to conclude what you do

Projecting is not concluding. It’s a way of estimating based on observations. You do it all the time in your daily life. You project your grocery budget for a year, for example, based on your observations of what and how much foods your family consumes.

The same criticism you (general atheists) levy at Intelligent Design, namely that it is untestable, no defined scientific mechanism) can be equally applied to abiogenesis. THe critical difference though is that the former is an inference from observation, while the latter is a conclusion in search of a justification.

General atheists? LOL. We’re not organized. We simply share a disbelief in the supernatural.

ID can be summarized in a simple sentence: Nature is so complex that there had to be a creator. It’s interesting that you would deny my projection of the possibility of habitable planets based upon observation but tout ID by claiming it’s an “inference from observation.” Agenda much?

Here's a thought experiment. Let's say some quantum computer AI advancement thingamajig occurs in your lifetime where the computer crunches the numbers and proves life from matter biochemically impossible, what's your response?

A thought experiment is a hypothetical scenario used to test a theory, principle, or hypothesis. Yours is not a thought experiment since it isn’t designed to examine any of these three scientific approaches to a particular phenomenon. It is, rather, a fantasy from your mind.