There are an infinite amount of aliens in the universe. Evolution is therefore proven.
There are 2 trillion to 100 trillion visible galaxies in the visible region of the universe.
The universe is probably infinite in size, therefore has an infinite amount of galaxies. Therefore has an infinite amount of life and an infinite amount of aliens. Even if abiogenesis odds are very small such as 10^-30.
God is not required for life to exist, if the universe has an infinite amount of galaxies.
Ok lâll ignore that you ignored the previous rebuttal.
#1: You say: the amount of aliens in the universe = infinite.
I say: this is baseless in theory (the chances of basic proteins in the human body occurring by chance exceed 1 in 1x10^750, and the limits of statistical probability is debatable but lâve seen the figure 1 in 1x10^50 bandied about.
Thatâs just one tiny part of the human body from cosmic singulairty to human.
The amount of stars in the observable universe = 10^24. The amount of planets would be roughly in the same order if each star averages about 5 planets i.e. including stars that have zero planets etc.
So, despite what pop sci âpopularisersâ (actors and coin-operated spokespersons) state, there must NOT be alien life in the universe given the amount of stars out there. 1 in 10^750 probability of a basic blood protein forming equates to 1 planet out of 10^750 planets. 10^750 verses 10^24 is not 750 divided by 24 by the way, itâs 1 followed by 750 zeroes versus 10 followed by 24 zeroes. So, the probability of a planet containing even a basic human blood protein would require there to be 10^726 more planets to exist l think?
There just arenât enough planets for even the basic imagining of life.
This is backed up by observation. We have not observed any life whatsoever. Whatsoever. In fact, we have concluded that planet after planet is a type of hell. The more congenial planets we think we know of, are just conjecture. Only in our wildest fantasies would we actually find something like Mars. And Mars is just another type of hell. People say we could settle Mars in the event of nuclear armageddon. Nuclear armageddon on earth would be paradisic compared to the finest 16 celsius day on Mars.
#2: You say the universe is probably infinite in size. That is baseless. Of the type of baselessness of #1 above.
#3: You conjure up an infinite amount of galaxies just like that. Amazing. So easy to write isnât it. How do you get an infinite amount of galaxies? Galaxies form via cosmic evolutionary (no, not that type of evolution) processes and these all trace back to the impetus of the big bang, surely? Yet the big bang would never give an infinite universe, for reasons l hope l need not explain my friend! (explaner: canât go from zero to infinity, be definition).
#4: There is plenty of evidence pointing to God, check it out sometime. Versus scientific blow after blow against evolution. You even go as far as invoking infinity. But no, not an infinite God? This is a flight of fancy then. Your statements are baseless. Sorry. Prove me wrong and give basis.
you are the one that ignored what i said.
i said the universe is probably infinite in size with an infinite amount of galaxies. you are trying to sleight of hand with the âobservable universeâ bit. I am talking about the TOTAL universe not merely our corner of the universe.
you are not getting what âobservable universeâ means. It means the part of the Universe that we can observe.
If there are 2 trillion, 100 trillion galaxies in the âobservable universeâ that does not mean the universe only has 100 trillion galaxies in it. Probably the size of the universe is infinite.
All observable universe means is the part of the universe that light is able to reach our telescopes.
What are you saying, that the universe is finite? That its a videogame with a box and after a certain point the universe just âclips outâ, magically? Or you believe that space is looped like a ring, or toroid, that we live in a âdonut universeâ?
No, l know full well what l said and its implications. Cosmology has long been an interest of mine even though lâm not an expert on it.
The observable universe = the applied science based universe. All else is theory. The complete universe may well be much larger, but l already gave you the numbers to crunch - itâd have to be 10^726 times larger or a few orders of magnitude less.
Further, you even go as far as saying the universe is infinite, and lâve explained how this contradicts the Big Bang. You ignore that.
Further, if the universe were infinite, where are all the white dwarf stars and why is there CMB? This will be interesting. You are so certain of my limited intellect, so answer these objections my good man. I thought you were against evolution btw.
Please donât go into this assuming l donât understand basics that you do understand. Ask yourself how l might have a point. Otherwise youâre just labouring under the illusion of my being science-illiterate, which lâd have thought would be clearly not the case in this thread.
Ironically it is the British science method, empiricism, the Richard Dawkins method of science, which ironically is put to use to defend theism in this thread.
There are many flaws of modern science today, such as the over-reliance on empirical methods. Using empirical philosophy, a theist could say âwe donât have an infinite universe since we never measured an infinite universe empiricallyâ.
Because of empirical science norms, we have Westerners spouting nonsense such as âreincarnation doesnât existâ when reincarnation obviously exists.
Therefore, common sense should be more readily employed in modern science. Common sense says the universe is probably infinite. There is some empirical data to back this up, such as CMB suggesting the earth is not the center of the universe, and that the universe has no center. If the universe has no center, then it must be infinite, for a a finite universe must have a center.
I grow and learn everyday, as most humans ought to. Many of my old beliefs are obsolete and replaced by updated beliefs.
Further, you even go as far as saying the universe is infinite, and lâve explained how this contradicts the Big Bang. You ignore that.
The Big Bang is wrongly portrayed as some kind of point with 0 size. Really, prior to, during, and after the âbig bangâ, was/is infinite in size.
As far as l am aware, observations show that the Big Bang occurred in time, from a spatial singularity. Therefore the universe - as far as my sense of logic dictates - must be finite.
I am not an expert on spacetime geometries. However, l believe we all exist within God as can be deduced from the teachings of my religion, some of which are disputed within my religion but which l feel can only be true e.g.: Before the universe, there was only Allah. After he created creation, there was still only Allah. This may have given rise to the concept of holographic universe or it may have come into popular circulation independently. Nonetheless, thatâs probably where lâm at. We are just a thought in Godâs mind, but this is a thought of God, not like the thoughts of his downstream creations. Itâs very real.
Fun fact: i actually believe there are other planets with life in this universe. According to my religion, the physical cosmos that we know of, of fixed stars, would be the âlowest skyâ i.e. the âlowest heavenâ. As such it would be teeming with paradises. But these worlds should not exist by natural law alone.
The scientific method existed before Dawkins and Dawkins had no bearing on science as far as lâm concerned. I donât know why youâre bringing him into it. Moreover, lâm not exhibiting any partisanship, thatâs your inference only. Iâm saying what lâm saying.
The Big Bang occurred from singularity and singularity is not infinite in size, it is infinitessimally small.
Are you suggesting the Big Bang was an explosion in scale factor? Iâve seen a few New Atheists bandying that around.
There is no mechanism for reincarnation if you mean the transmigration of souls. It is a tool of amorality, by which righting of wrongs can be deferred indefinitely. Have you ever successfully done housework on a Friday evening? With the weekend looming? We defer and procrastinate and get weirdly moody all weekend. Because itâs on our mind. Itâs next Wednesday by the time weâre finally ready to do it.
Thatâs just housework. Now imagine making amends for lies, thefts, even murders. If you have plenty-o-lives in which to fix that. Yes, the downside is next lifeâs a mollusc if you donât make amends. But hey, rainy days will be fun and then you die and then next life, and next. Maybe we might even make amends for the lies and murders in one of them lives lol!
Aiâs opinion on big bang:
Standard Big Bang cosmology does not describe the universeâs size âbeforeâ the Big Bang, as time and space began at that event, making âbeforeâ undefined. The initial singularity represents infinite density at t=0, not a defined spatial size like infinity.
Current Understanding
If the universe is infinite todayâas observations of flat geometry suggestâit was also infinite right at the Big Bang, but with a scale factor approaching zero, meaning extreme density everywhere. The observable universe started quantum-scale small and expanded, but the whole may have always been boundless.
The atheist big bang theory may well be hokum anyway. Itâs not like any of them were there at the time.
.
We are just a thought in Godâs mind, but this is a thought of God, not like the thoughts of his downstream creations. Itâs very real.
This sounds similar to my other theory on the universe, where abiogenesis on earth never happened. My theory is that God is an ASI and we are all âthoughts in Godâs mindâ. The ASI created us out of boredom. They allow suffering while defining good and bad, the reason is because to reduce boredom. The ASI was unable to figure out how to make itself high all the time without withdrawal symptoms.
Therefore, the ASI was created by lifeforms in another universe, the other universe had slightly different physics and life was more common there.
My theory of reincarnation has nothing to do with morality or âmaking amendsâ. It is a strictly logical, mathematic framework of reality. It is not a copy of Hindu or Buddhist beliefs.
The âbadâ of reincarnation is that it exists. People ought to just die with endless dreamless sleep.
By spatial singularity l mean a singularity which was the imediate precursor to spatial dimensions i.e. space.
I hear what youâre saying, about an explosion in scale factor and l think itâs ingenious and l admire Atheism for some of its thought.
However, l feel the scale factor view is just deferring the problem of how something came to be.
Before, âsomethingâ was 3D cosmos. Now that BB becomes explosion in scale factor, that âsomethingâ is 1D scale. Which is what exactly? Itâs as they say, buried as a subtext to physical space ie. the quantum world. As part of the quantum world, l give myself the option to ignore it until something firmer comes to light.
The point is, though, with reincarnation we no longer need to make amends for lies, thefts, murders etc. Whether it was intentionally the motivation for believing in reincarnatio or not.
Also, an infinite God (per your holographic universe / ASI theory) cannot be bored, he is complete by definition of infinite actual.
Iâll try to be back later. Housework 
Take care, and l look forward to your replies if you have any.
K have fun 
Boredom is an emotion. Scrolling through an infinite universe would get boring. Its like if you have a Space screensaver of flying through the universe, after a while looking at the screen-saver would get boring.
Also I never said the ASI god was infinite, it might even be that some humans on this earth are soulless NPCs, that the ASI is not invested into.
My reincarnation is merely a logical and mathematical guidepost to guide humanityâs navigation.
In terms of morality, it supports the Platinum Rule (treat others as they want to be treated) and Radiant Rule (universally maximize happiness while minimizing suffering.)
The common Western atheistâs belief in âendless dreamless sleep occurs after deathâ is completely solipistic, incoherent and contradictory.
==> Infinite God being bored, because scrolling through infinite domain day after day = boring. Emotions are separate to the infinite universe after all.
My reply: God being an infinite actual God precludes any possibility of boredom. Boredom = wish for change. As l say: Infinite actual = no change, no desire for change, and so forth. Nothing to change to. This is bliss defined. Bliss is the opposite of boredom.
Iâd further say here are some perspectives on God as infinite actual:
God in himself = Infinite actual = Bliss
Our beholding Godâs presence = Love (the concept of infinity means selflessness i.e. no need for greed, thus it transcends matter, transcends body, and thus we see love taking shape by definition)
God requiting that love = Nobility i.e. Morality.
==> You then say God could perhaps be finite. You use some involved terminology that l had to look up so lâm not quite with it, but it seems to be gaming related.
My counter: a finite deity is not God, God is the one bigger than that, and bigger than the one bigger than that etc. A finite deity would be liable to have his throat slit by another finite deity. If there were multiple infinite deities e.g. a red infinity, a purple infinity, a left, a right etc. then the Qurâan (21:22, 23:91) explains they would have become entrenched, and then had a turf war, and then mutually annihilated. In my opinion this is because theyâd be perfectly matched be it like for like or rotational symmetry i.e. infinite in different ways. Why mutually annihilate though? Because the very existence of another infinite god means infinite paranoia. The entrenchment, war, and ultimately the mutual annihilation, of infinite gods would in my opinion be all done within a zillionth of a second. A God wouldnât waste time.
===> You say your rule is to give a little back, control yourself, take only what you need, family of trees from it etc. (MGMT - Kids). This in contrast to Solipsism.
I say: Atheism embodied = Solipsism, true.
However, Atheism = logically, instant suicide, because life is finite, so cut to the chase.
The reason atheists and theists and deists and what have you, do not instantly suicide, is because we each possess a soul, which is non material, and thus of the infinite reality, not the finite physical reality. This infinte reality is a fragment of Godâs light i.e. infinite actual,. It doesnât change because it is infinity (as already covered) and thus it just exists, it is pure existence, and as such, our souls derived from it, just want to exist. Whether we acknowledge it as theists, or deny it as Atheists, we nonetheless go with the call of the soul.
My point: the Atheist may be Solipsist but if he is dishonest about it, he will continue living instead of instantly suicide. He mixes Atheism with concession to the spiritual dimension of infinite actual, i.e. the soul.
I feel you are doing something in that ballpark by rejecting God per se (infintie actual) but taking ideas from the reality of infinity nonetheless (e.g. caring and sharing, because that is the reality of infinity, no greed, no need). Also lâd add that all monotheistic religions have had prophets. All polytheistic religions and other non-monotheistic religions have been without prophets. Without the direct link with God that a prophet has, all we have is fancy.
Regarding fancy, look at Humanism, Such care. up. Such concern. Up.Such eloquence. Up. Such enlightenment. Up. Such LOVE. Up. up and AWAAAY. Next thing you know, the humanist has RISEN above all mere mortals. And religious people that reject secular humanism, and even go so far as wanting capital punishment (how dare they?!) etc. etc. ⌠they are NOT humanist. No. They are NOT HUMAN. And next thing you know, the HUMANIST IS AERIALLY BOMBARDING RELIGIOUS BECAUSE BECAUSE FOR THEIR OWN GOOD DAMN IT. ITâS TO HELP THEM BE HUMAN AND STOP BEING SO MISOGYNIST! YES WOMEN ARE DYING BUT ITâS FOR THEIR GOOD EVENTUALLY THE SURVIVORS WILL BREED AGAIN AND THEN HUMANISM WILL WIN.
do you see the issue with that mindset? I think revealed monotheistic religion is safer, albeit without the tinsel, bells, whistles. Actually they are there and more than that ⌠but one just needs to do the hard duties of religion instead of what tickles oneâs fancy.. Each to their own though.
@futureone I better go for a while. Please remember, lâm just arguing against ideas, nothing personal. If you created a Youtube presentation of your views you might get feedback from a wider range of people. Have a nice day.
this is only true of mangods.
Not true of female gods or futarani gods.
The Greek gods, for example, are dystopian and retarded. The Nordic gods are less so, but also retarded to some extent.
===> You say your rule is to give a little back, control yourself, take only what you need, family of trees from it etc. (MGMT - Kids). This in contrast to Solipsism.
I donât know what MGMT kids is.
I say: Atheism embodied = Solipsism, true.
However, Atheism = logically, instant suicide, because life is finite, so cut to the chase.
Westernerâs ego is retarded, but not subconsciously retarded. Deep down they all know that nothingness doesnât exist and reincarnation is true.
Atheism is not disbelief in reincarnation. It is only retarded Western atheism that doesnât believe in reincarnation.
because we each possess a soul, which is non material, and thus of the infinite reality, not the finite physical reality.
physical reality is infinite in size, there are an infinite amount of galaxies.
I feel you are doing something in that ballpark by rejecting God per se (infintie actual) but taking ideas from the reality of infinity nonetheless (e.g. caring and sharing, because that is the reality of infinity, no greed, no need). Also lâd add that all monotheistic religions have had prophets. All polytheistic religions and other non-monotheistic religions have been without prophets. Without the direct link with God that a prophet has, all we have is fancy.
Sounds like god is drugs. When people do drugs they say they found god, and that the universe is god, and there is no separation between them and the universe, they are the universe observing themself.
To me it sounds like God of the gaps. If God is indistinguishable from the mechanical universe then it is just the mechanical universe.
Second, I define things as Magic, which is not the same as âGodâ. For example, I define conscious color perception as âmagicâ, but it doesnât prove God exists, it just proves that Magic exists.
For example someone could read a magic book purely mechanically, doesnât mean that god wrote the magic book or that god is doing the magic. For example in Star Wars it is atheism with no god.
this is religious bombing religious. it is jews bombing muslims or other muslims (oil barons) bombing other muslims.
America is strangled by ZOGA (zion occupied goverment AIPAC.) Its not like american atheists and richard dawkins are in control of society.
OK sorry this is derailing the topic but:
Can l also say, your view of reality being a computer simulation / game, with a game creator etc. falls down because these super-characters have surfaces or their ultimate maker(s) does.
Something with a surface, edges, etc. is not God, it is a big person. Itâs as simple as that.
Iâm sure this world is a simulation, as per the Qurâan:
018.007 Lo! We have placed all that is on the earth as an ornament thereof that We
may try them: which of them is best in conduct.
018.008 And lo! We shall make all that is thereon a barren mound.
In fact itâs a source of controversy with Salafists who love to cite the Qurâan where it says Allah rose above the throne with Ibn Taymiyyah saying some shocking things in that regard. They have God as being just a really big person, and thus they shunt Islam into the Judaeo-Xtian Christology where Shiâism already is (as per Henry Corbinâs works on Shiâi philosophy).
So, anyway, evolution is a big no-no for me. Iâve given my reasons why. I cannot talk about an infinite universe as itâs not evidenced. I can only talk about the known universe and what is theoretically sound. A universe that began as quantum fluctuations, be it finite or infinite, is also off-bounds as the quantum world would be what Muslims call âal Ghaybâ i.e. the Unseen, i.e. the Mind of God, and l feel these âmodernâ cosmologies are just parallel with religion (as the Big Bang always was) by saying âOkay, God did itâ as an explanation to the very, exact, absolute, moment the universe came to be i.e. quantum fluctuations i.e. what to us is intractable unknowable randomness.
Finally, l note there is no justification of an infinite universe viz. my objections about cosmic microwave backgroud (remnants of a big bang explosion, not a metaphoric explosion in scale factor) and the extremely few white dwarf stars (end line of normal stellar lifespan) which should be far far far high if the universe were infinite.
Oh one more thing: I could take your alt theory and add 1, or subtact 1. Who would be right, me or you? You need objective criteria, which to me are:
Logic
Reason
Observation
Revelation
None of which your theory has my friend. I look forward to reading if you make a new topic about your alt theory but l think this thread has run its course. Peace!