Debates about Arguments for God in Youtube Comments Section

Here is an interesting debate I had in the comments section of a YouTube video called, “Dr. Niel DeGrasse Tyson is 100% WRONG About God“, published by a channel called Capturing Christianity presented by a man called Cameron Bertuzzi. In the video, Mr. Bertuzzi challenges the claims, ‘there is no evidence for God’, ‘faith is believe in something without evidence’, and ‘God and Evil are Incompatible’. I saw two comments challenging Mr. Bertuzzi’s arguments by claiming they were illogical, a claim I believed was untrue, so I decided to respond. Here is the chain of rebuttal that followed, which I hope you will find interesting. Also, don’t forget to comment or raise a question in the forum: I’d love to know what you think!

The video:

Thread #1

Simon Chubb

Simon Chubb 6 days ago
6:20 Evidence of Dependent Things. Evidence? It barely holds up as theory. This “evidence” uses a Special Pleading defence. Apparently everything depends on something, so everything depends on God…but God doesn’t depend on anything. Not logical
20 REPLY Hide 28 replies

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 3 days ago
The fact that everything we see in the physical universe depends on something, does not mean that we cannot posit something that does not in order to provide an explanation of where all of these dependent things came from. It is a sound theoretical proposition that God does not depend on anything. The fallacy which lead you to label the argument as “not logical” is in assuming that the argument was stating that the quality of dependency is universal to all imaginable things, when it in fact all it was saying is that all things we can observe seem to share this quality. Even though we may not be able to fully comprehend them, we can certainly imagine things that are not dependent (and have done so for thousands of years), e.g. God, steady-state universes, etc.Show less
5 REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 3 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek Well I guess there is evidence for the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater – you know since I can imagine it.
4 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Veridicus Maximus The fact that we can imagine a flying purple people eater is not evidence for it’s existence, nor is it evidence for God. I was only refuting Simon Chubb’s claim that the dependent things argument is illogical.
2 REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I think his original point was this: If you posit an independent thing based upon the evidence of all dependent things there is no justification to posit this supernatural independent thing given the evidence? The evidence is telling you that everything we observe is dependent thus if you imagine a God as independent of all other things based solely on this evidence then you are special pleading. You can’t base your positing that an independent thing exists based upon all other things being dependent and then say well the thing I imagine is not dependent and then claim victory.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Veridicus Maximus Why not? If it were true that everything we see is dependent, it would logically follow that there must be some independent source of all the things we see, otherwise none of what we see could exist, right?
2 REPLY

TheLegendOfRandy

TheLegendOfRandy 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek “It is a sound theoretical proposition that God does not depend on anything.” No, it’s an empty assertion not supported by evidence as well as an argument from ignorance fallacy. Replace “God” with “Invisible Universe-Creating Unicorns,” or any other baseless unfalsifiable claim, and you have the same exact argument with the same amount of evidence, zero. Your claim needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted.Show less
1 REPLY

Sebastian Schulz

Sebastian Schulz 2 days ago
and how would you prove that? Cameron would argue that otherwise the whole explanation would collapse. True, the whole explanation he elaborates never takes off the ground in the first place.
1 REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek It does not follow that it is supernatural – God. And furthermore the claim was that the Evidence was dependent things. How does the evidence of dependent things lead you to imagine a God as the independent foundation of all reality. The claim was not that something independent of all dependent things necessarily exist.
REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago (edited)
@Abram Leyzorek Another point here is the fallacy of composition. It does not follow that because the things made up of energy – that is dependent upon energy existing for there to be things at all (dependent things) – means that Energy itself is dependent. What you mean to say is that something must be eternal for there to be anything at all. I could posit Energy as the ground state of existence based upon the First Law and everything that we experience is dependent upon it’s existence. Energy is the independent reality.
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago (edited)
@TheLegendOfRandy I wasn’t making any claims about or arguments for the existence of God. I only said that if he existed, he could theoretically be independent, which was in response to Simon Chubbs assertion that the dependent things argument is illogical. Please refer to the video above and other sources if you want actual arguments for the existence of God. I’m just posting here to check false claims about these arguments for the benefit of the audience.Show less
1 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago (edited)
@Sebastian Schulz I assume you are addressing my statement, “If it were true that everything we see is dependent, it would logically follow that there must be some independent source of all the things we see, otherwise none of what we see could exist…” The way I would prove this is by looking at how the objects we see got to be what and where they are and what roles other things may have played in there to journey to the point at which we perceive them. Doing this, we can see that many preceding things influenced this journey and you can trace this all the way back to the Big Bang. The unanswerable yet intriguing question, “where did the Big Bang come from?” follows. It is well worth examining the universe we live in for clues that may help answer this question.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Veridicus Maximus You are correct: god does not follow from the dependent things argument. Rather, it points to some unknown thing that must share one of God’s characteristics, i.e. permanence.
1 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Veridicus Maximus About the alleged fallacy of composition, I do not think this exists at least as far as energy is concerned. I don’t think energy can be the independent reality because of the Second the Law of Thermodynamics. I admit that I don’t know much physics, so I could be misrepresenting this law, but it seems to me that if energy had been around forever then it would have reached the state of maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. Since it has not, I assume that the universe, including energy, must have existed for a finite amount of time.Show less
1 REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek Granted, but there are a lot of models that would say otherwise. It may not be the case that when this ‘universe’ reaches its maximum entropy that it is impossible, particularly at the quantum level, for further fluctuations that allow for expansion again or another universe forming from this ground state. But we were first simply positing what could be imagined not what is scientifically explained. And the 1st Law does not contradict the 2nd Law. What we know so far now is that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. So for me to posit it as the ground state of all existence is much more justified given that we know we exist materially and that this law is in affect. All dependent things are just transformation of Energy. I don’t see any justification, other than mere assertion a priori that the supernatural exists let alone some religion’s God to be the ultimate permanent thing.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Veridicus Maximus It sounds like you know more physics than I. I don’t understand how new universes could be formed from old ones at maximum entropy, nor do I even, now that I think about it, know what the point of maximum entropy would be. Would it be a uniform distribution of matter at the same temperature, or would it be all matter inside of a black hole? A black hole gets rid of gravitational potential energy but concentrates energy in one place, albeit a place it has difficulty escaping from, except by Hawking radiation. I suppose even a very large black hole made up of all matter and energy in the universe would eventually evaporate via Hawking radiation leading to the aforementioned uniform particle distribution at the same temperature? But this is just wild speculation. I have heard that steady state universes can exist in theory, but that they would be very unlikely due to the possibility of the universe either expanding forever or not being able to re-expand when it collapses. I don’t think steady state cosmology is mainstream these days, but I could be wrong. Also, I don’t know if your statement, “All dependent things are just transformation of Energy”, is true. What about matter? Aren’t matter and energy two different things? If so, I anticipate you will say that no matter is ever created or destroyed and thus is also an independent thing. The question then, I suppose is whether or not you would be correct, and for that to be the case, steady state cosmology must be true as well; there would have to be no final resting place for he universe and all processes would have to be reversible in some way eventually, which entropy, barring quantum fluctuations, would seem to rule out. Anyway, at our current level of knowledge I don’t think anything can be proved either way and we should look at what model of the universe seems more probable (see second paragraph). At this point you could invoke the anthropic principle, and then we would have to move on to a lengthy discussion of whether or not their are reasons to believe we are besides the fact that we are here. I recommend we end this discussion now (as we have reached it’s logical endpoint) and go read more books and learn more physics and live more life to continue gaining knowledge and experience to update our hypotheses about the nature of the universe and our place in it. If you want to learn more about how an intelligent person could come to believe in the existence of God and even accept Christianity as true, I recommend you read C. S. Lewis’ book Surprised By Joy. And if I may offer one final tip about religion, please don’t make the false assumption that if one religion is true than all others must be false. A true religionist would say that all legitimate religions contain elements of truth and point to the same thing and that, though there may be many mutually exclusive assertions in them, these are not about important things generally and they simply represent distortions in the light of truth caused by the unique imperfections in the lenses of the eyes of the people and cultures in which their religion arose; they are all looking at the same thing but with different perspectives, blind spots, and imperfections.Show less
REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I used to be a Christian and have read C.S. Lewis. A few points though, at maximum entropy there would be no black holes but there also would not be uniform distribution at the quantum level there are still fluctuations – whether these could then start a new universe is not known yet. Matter and energy are not two different things at the basic ontological level – everything is energy. It might be helpful, as it was to me, to listen to Sean Carroll as he has some good insights on these things. Wiki has info and there are plenty of videos on YouTube that can be explored. Peace!Show less
REPLY

Sebastian Schulz

Sebastian Schulz 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I find the statement everthing is dependent very vague and open to quite a lot of interpretation and this is therefore no evidence for anything. As cor cosmology, I cannot answer what happened in the big bang as many things happened in the tiniest time scales, where eras now last for billion of years. The expanding universe will eventually be so diluted that no new stars will form and things will be dark, temperature so low that no life as we know it can exist.Show less
REPLY

Lil Christian

Lil Christian 2 days ago
God by definition doesnโ€™t depend on anything or Heโ€™s not God
1 REPLY

Simon Chubb

Simon Chubb 2 days ago
@Lil Christian or he doesn’t exist. Effectively it makes no difference
REPLY

Veridicus Maximus

Veridicus Maximus 2 days ago (edited)
@Lil Christian How convenient, a definition based upon nothing other than wanting a conclusion. In other words just define things that suite your own conclusions a priori.
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Sebastian Schulz As I see it, there is a very specific definition for dependent, which is an adjective that describes anything that required something else to be what it is. Now, you’re right, the word ‘everything’ in the statement “everything is dependent” is open to interpretation. I disagree that it is vague however, as it, interpreted literally, means that everything (which means all things that exist, have existed, could exist, couldn’t exist, can only be thought of, can’t be thought of, concepts, abstractions, etc.) is dependent. Thus, I think that the statement should be amended to, ‘everything we can observe is dependent.’Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Simon Chubb The statements ‘God does not exist’ and ‘God is not dependent’ are clearly two different statements.
2 REPLY

Lil Christian

Lil Christian 2 days ago
Veridicus Maximus okay then letโ€™s apply that to Laurence Krause trying to re define nothing just change it to whatever I mean if someone on my side does it someone on yours does to and vice versa both sides have their ups and downs and ultimately it comes to one thing your worldview anything you read on this topic will be interpreted to your worldview, and same for me Iโ€™m gonna admit it I do interpret it to my worldview so do you
REPLY

Sebastian Schulz

Sebastian Schulz 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I you allow me to put ypir words differently, dependence can be a consequence of causality. Applying this shifts the whole thing towards the Kalam Cosmological argument which requeires the postulate of a first uncaused cause. This postulate is unprovable. Plus the Cosmological argument could prove any god not necessarily the Christian who uses it intends to prove. So in science this method of proving something is flawed. Because the whole thing is vague as I put it. Sure matter and particles and radiation interact, so there is time and causality and therefore you can see pattern of dependence in events. But dependence is also limited. There are regions too far away to interact with each other. Events in a black hole will never affect us. Everything is dependent is a statement with so many consequences, if you pull one consequence from it to serve a particular chain of arguments, you need to check whether all other conclusions therefrom do not contradict your hypothesis. Many Christian apologists are too lazy and too insincere to do that. Show less
REPLY

Sebastian Schulz

Sebastian Schulz 2 days ago
I am also not impressed with Cameron pulling some thoughts together which are totally meaningless. Cameron is trying to battle science with philosophy. And this is why anything he says is pointless.
1 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 1 day ago
@Sebastian Schulz I disagree that the “first uncaused cause” is unverifiable. The way I see it, there are only two options: either their was a “first uncaused cuase” or an infinite amount of time has passed before the present day. I doubt whether the latter can be true for the following reasons:
1. The universe appears to be developing through time towards some end, i.e. is not static, and it has yet to reach that end. A possible objection is that, due to quantum fluctuations, given an infinite amount of time the universe will restart itself an infinite number of times and we just happen to be living in one of those times. I’m not sure this is even possible given infinite time, though, as it seems to violate the second law of thermodynamics. I don’t even know if it would possible just considering quantum mechanics, but I have a very limited understanding of that subject.
2. I don’t think it would be possible to traverse an infinite amount of time, as William Lane Craig argues in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Now, you may object that the concept of a beginning-less, changeless, omnipotent being is just as incomprehensible as the concept of infinity. This is a valid objection, but I don’t see why we should favor one completely incomprehensible alternative over the other. Personally, I think the discussion should end here and we should look in other areas of knowledge and experience in an attempt to tip the scales towards one or the other. I’m curious what other consequences (other than the “first uncaused cause”) of everything we observe being dependent you think many christian apologists are missing?Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 1 day ago
@Sebastian Schulz I did not find anything Cameron said to be meaningless. You may disagree about whether or not it is true, but please do not deny that it has meaning. This is just a cowardly cop out to avoid thinking about what he says and it will stunt your understanding greatly. I’m not saying you should view it this way or that this was your intention, and I hope it doesn’t offend you, but this the consequence of your statement from my point of view I wanted to protect you from that. I also think it is wrong to say that Cameron is ” trying to battle science with philosophy.” All he is doing is taking observations (science) and trying to interpret their meaning, to fit them into an overarching structure (or theory). This is the science of philosophy. Science is not at odds with philosophy in any way; rather, it is what fuels philosophy.Show less
REPLY

Angus McMillan

Angus McMillan 1 day ago
Logic is, shockingly, deterministic. It is a formal system, whose set of rules are applicable to this deterministic system. The rules of any formal system are only applicable for the things it is applicable to. Not just random everything. This system is four dimensional. X, Y, Z and time. So, it is deterministic in time and space. Time and space were created by the creator – how can they apply to him? Tthe creator may very well depend on “something”. Yet he does not depend on anything in this system. That would be a circular reference. How would God create something which he needed to function in the first place? Whether the creator himself was created by a creator is a different question. And it seems likely to me, but most certainly possible. We see this pattern in this world over and over, the pattern that patterns are repeating themselves (fractals – as above so below, and I don’t mean the upside down satanic version of that principle – it is turned around). Could we ever hope to experience the existence of the creator of the creator? I don’t think so.Show less
REPLY

Thread #2

Marco

Marco 6 days ago (edited)
“Today, ordinary matter, which includes atoms, stars, galaxies, and life, accounts for only 4.9% of the contents of the Universe”. “More than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out” -Wikipidia. ๐Ÿค” The vast majority of the Universe doesn’t have ordinary matter, let alone life, and even where this exists, the Universe is very efficient in destroying it. The Universe is fine tuned to kill us. ๐Ÿ˜…Show less
13 REPLY

Marco

Marco 6 days ago
@DManCAWMaster you’re right ๐Ÿ˜…, I’m lazy. Don’t be like me, search for “Universe composition” and “mass extinctions” in Google Scholar for more academic articles on the subject or visit your local library.
4 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 3 days ago
First of all, I don’t understand why the first factoid you cite is relevant to the discussion. As for the second factoid, isn’t it amazing that five billion species HAVE lived on Earth, which would be impossible without them dying out successively? As for your personal assertion that there is no life in the universe besides those carbon-based creatures on Earth, please provide some evidence. As far as I know, astronomers are still searching for signs other life in the universe and whether or not it exists or not is still an open question. There is considerable evidence that life may have lived in the past on Mars in its younger days, so I think there is reason to be hopeful about finding other life in the universe. As for your final cynical comment, it seems that, as per your second factoid, the universe (at least on Earth) is actually great at producing abundant, diverse life. As I said before, this abundance and diversity would simply not be possible without death. I wouldn’t view mortality as an opposing or opposite force to life: it is actually an essential component of life.Show less
1 REPLY

Caleb Hukill

Caleb Hukill 3 days ago
Its pretty clear that even this planet alone isn’t designed for humans. About 20% of the entire surface of the globe is habitable to humans. Only by living in groups can humans even survive; basically any animal could kill us.
4 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 3 days ago
@Caleb Hukill I agree that humans have not been given special consideration when it comes to habitat availability (although more than some species), but how is that relevant to the discussion? My last comment applies to your last comment, as well, but I will say that it is actually humans that do the lion’s share of the killing in this world and we firmly situated at the top of the food chain.Show less
REPLY

Caleb Hukill

Caleb Hukill 3 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I agree that its amazing how many species have lived on Earth. I agree that death is inevitable in this universe and necessary for evolution. Neither of these facts(one is actually an opinion) rebut Marco’s criticism, though. Really, the fact that organisms have to evolve to survive in the first place disproves fine tuning. The point about no observed planets, other than Earth, having life demonstrates how non-life-permitting the universe is. Maybe Mars had life, we don’t really know. The vast majority of space rocks and planets have no life at all.Show less
1 REPLY

Marco

Marco 3 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek  Abram Leyzorek  I’m not claiming that life cannot exist elsewhere in the universe, actually I think It’s possible, I’m just saying that even if life was in every galaxy, it would be a negligible part of the universe, not something the universe is made for, life doesn’t receive a special treatment and it’s not the Universe’s “core business”. However yes, I do agree death is necessary to life to evolve, old life forms must give way to new ones, more adapted to conquer new habitats, fighting the (not so) fine tuned Universe to survive. ๐Ÿ˜‰Show less
2 REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 3 days ago
@Marco Okay, I see what you are saying now. I agree with your statement that life, even if abundant in every galaxy, would make up only a tiny fraction of the matter, energy, and whatever else the universe is made of. But I can’t follow along with your assertion that this is not the universe’s “‘core business.'” Whether or not this is true or false, I have no idea, but you can’t just assume that insignificance in physical size or scope translates into valuative insignificance: If you saw a settlement with people in it, would you assume that the people are not the main point or cause of the settlement’s existence just because the materials used to make all of the houses and tools necessary for the people’s sustenance would make up a larger proportion of the matter in the system? Obviously, a theist could make the same analogy with the entire universe. Whether or not this would be apt still needs to be discussed, but you see my point. If I may take a moment to expand the former analogy to the whole universe, I think it will yield interesting results. It is actually demonstrably true that a good chunk of all this matter and energy you see as irrelevant to live is actually necessary for it. Take the Sun, for example. It is 333,000 times the mass of the Earth (let alone the biomass on the Earth). This massive Sun is necessary to fuse atomic nuclei in order to produce the solar radiation that powers all life on Earth. Similar suns make up much of the observable mass of the universe where they may provide heat for other life forms. About dark matter and energy, I don’t think scientists have any idea what function it plays in the universe, so speculating about it is pointless. I think we should be wary of asserting that certain things don’t have an impact on something important, life or otherwise, because our, at least my own, understanding of the universe is far too limited. About your last statement on death being necessary for evolution, I suppose I have to agree, because if no organisms died and continually reproduced, then pretty soon all resources would be consumed and all that life would die out. That wasn’t my original point about death, though, which was that for any life forms, evolving or not, to be sustainable, death needs to be apart of the process to give back nutrients to future generations and control population levels, as well as make way for future generations. Here, I would like to make one final point about death and evolution. You, pessimistically I presume, stated in your original comment that 99% of all species have gone extinct. I pointed out that one way to look at that positively is to reverse he observation and say that current life forms on Earth only represent a tiny fraction of all the wonderful life forms that preceded them. Another positive way to look at it is that none of our antecedents died in vain because without them we wouldn’t be here; we share their genes and they were a necessary step in our evolution. In reality, we owe them everything. And it is worth realizing how dependent we all are and were on the benevolence of the larger universe providing the right conditions for life to arise in the first place and for continuing to provide the energy required to sustain it.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 3 days ago
@Caleb Hukill Thanks for your reply. The necessity for adaptation to changing conditions does not mean that the universe did not have to meet certain very specific criteria to make any kind of life possible at all. I see what you are saying, though, and it is a clever argument. Clearly, this isn’t the kind of universe that supports a single, static form of life. Even if your last assertion is true, it doesn’t mean that all those lifeless space rocks don’t serve some purpose in supporting what little life DOES exist. For example, the planet Jupiter is thought be to an essential comet shield for Earth. And just because we’re not intelligent and knowledgeable enough to come up with any reason why other things are necessary, for life or otherwise, doesn’t mean those reasons don’t exist.Show less
REPLY

Caleb Hukill

Caleb Hukill 3 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek Your settlement analogy doesn’t really work because all of the materials that went into the settlement clearly benefit the settlers in the form of shelter and tools while there’s no clear benefit for life from most space matter. The fact that the vast majority of species that have existed are extinct is neither pessimistic nor optimistic; its neutral, as all things should be when discussing the nature of the universe.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Caleb Hukill The extent to which the settlement analogy can be applied to the universe depends on knowledge I don’t think scientists yet have. We already know that a vast quantity of matter is required to form the planets that life lives upon and that hundreds of thousands of times more matter beyond that is needed to form stars that are the energy source for most life. Yet, you’re right, this is still only a tiny fraction of the stuff out there, i.e. dark matter & energy. Since we can only detect it by it’s gravitational (or anti-gravitational) effects, I think it is pointless to speculate at this time about it’s role in the universe and impact on life, which may be good, bad, or neutral. Plus, as I keep hinting at, we shouldn’t say that all this stuff in space has no purpose even if we can’t see a benefit to life from it. It may serve some other important purpose unbeknownst to us. It would be very arrogant and egocentric to think that the only way anything could have meaning is by benefiting us. About neutrality when discussing the nature of the universe, I think this is generally a good thing. But a discussion of the nature of the universe as it pertains to life and ourselves should not end in objectivity for anyone who values their own lives and those of other creatures.Show less
REPLY

Caleb Hukill

Caleb Hukill 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I think we should make as few assumptions as possible to ensure our view of the world is as true as possible. It follows from this that we shouldn’t assume that anything has a purpose until that purpose is demonstrated. I think that’s the main difference between your thought process and mine. I could be mistaken though.
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Caleb Hukill Yes, I completely agree. I am only trying to guard against the assumption that certain things DO NOT have a purpose.
REPLY

Caleb Hukill

Caleb Hukill 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I should probably clarify, in the context of certain things such as math, assumptions can make the problem easier. In the context of the scientific method or some case where you’re testing a hypothesis, more assumptions will generally mess up your results. Speaking of purpose, Jean Paul Sartre has written some pretty interesting stuff on where purpose comes from, what has purpose and what doesn’t. I’d recommend reading some of his stuff like Existentialism is a Humanism if you like Philosophy.Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@Caleb Hukill Thanks for the clarification and reference to Sartre; I do like philosophy, but I admit I am not terribly well read on the subject, so I will definitely check Sartre out at some point. Thanks for a great discussion!
REPLY

dogma jones

dogma jones 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek yeah, it’s not like the planet has been hammered by more than TEN mass extinction events since life has existed upon it.
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 2 days ago
@dogma jones Actually, according to current paleontology, that is what has happened. You agree with this obviously, I assume you were being sarcastic, and I don’t deny. Please elucidate your point further as I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by sarcastically stating that fact. Thanks.
REPLY

Jo' Okk

Jo’ Okk 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek I’d “buy you a drink” if I could ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿฝ๐Ÿ‘๐ŸฝYou too @Caleb Hukill, I enjoyed reading every bit of this discussion, and I love how you both wrapped it up (I’m on Abram’s side btw)
1 REPLY

dogma jones

dogma jones 2 days ago
@Abram Leyzorek the point I’m trying to make, is that if this planet was created for life in mind by a benevolent being, then life wouldn’t be constantly receiving a game over screen every few million years.
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 1 day ago
@dogma jones Thanks for clarifying your point. I want to say several things about it. First, I don’t think that the extinctions you mentioned were really as bad as you think. I do think they were bad in the sense that many many individual creatures were killed, but I’m not sure they were bad for the reason most people think, which is because so many species went extinct. I don’t think a certain species going extinct is really very bad at all as long as it is replaced by a new (and perhaps better) species. Most of the individuals of all the species that went extinct got to live natural lives and it was only the relatively few unlucky individuals at the time of the extinction events that perhaps got their lives cut short (which wasn’t a rare occurrence in the “natural” lives of their predecessors due to predators and disease). Second, I think the extinctions were good in that they provided a driving force for life to evolve. Without those extinctions, we would not be here today and the world would still be ruled by reptiles. A being capable of higher thought processes like us may not have evolved by now. I wouldn’t view the extinctions as a setback to life since they helped it evolve, even the seemingly unlucky reptiles (they now have the ability to fly as birds). If there is a benevolent creator, it seems he is grooming life to become better and better instead of remaining static and stagnant. Yes, he is willing to kill off large numbers of individuals at one time, but death was already a natural, necessary, and acceptable part of the world he created. What do you think of this point of view?Show less
REPLY

Abram Leyzorek

Abram Leyzorek 1 day ago
@Jo’ Okk Glad to hear someone’s enjoying it; thanks for letting me know!

What do you think? Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.