Life and God

[Willum]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

If life has purpose, and including the whole apple story,etc., we should see life everywhere, by design.

At least that is the premise, any counter-views?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

Sigh, how can an "if" be flawed?
Here let me see what we've been able to conclude when we weren't trying to undermine instead of refine the OP:

We concluded life must serve a practical purpose for God.
If it is only practical on Earth, then it must be practical for something here.

Despite your objections, this conclusion does not seem practical.

There are literally billions of lifeforms on earth. Evidently, if God exists, he did create life over and over again.

If he did create life over and over again, then each should serve a purpose...

We should be able to understand something intelligent from the actions of that life in God's intent.

You made several arguments, that though true, neither support not contradict the OP, or your position.

You failed to understand the definition of intelligence - what or why is something intelligent, what can we observe about intelligence? It repeats stuff that works...

Great discussion points I missed:

Perhaps it created life elsewhere, and just didn't mention it in the "divine" musings it gave to Earthlings.

Remember that the Biblical God got so bent out of shape over His experiment here that He threw a tantrum and drowned everything. If earth was the first try, maybe it was the last.

This actually tells us a bit about the scope of God's intelligence.

God's design for life sucked... that would suggest he might try elsewhere...

If one planet containing life was enough, why would it be necessary to have life in every solar system?

And if it was not... how do I work with this? If true, so what, if false, then we have the OP again.

RE Omniscient. You're absolutely right. An omniscient God would already know everything, so knowledge must not be one of the goals in life's creation... what is then?

Sure. I don't mean to imply that an intelligent being wouldn't repeat anything. I just don't see the justification for it repeating everything.

And no counter either, so why bring it up again? Move on.

So, in short, the premise is not flawed, it is incomplete, designed to make some assumptions, and see what can be derived from them. If they arrive at observed or logical conclusions, SHAZAM! We've discovered something

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

Sigh, how can an "if" be flawed?

The if's weren't flawed. The conclusion you drew with the if's were flawed.
For example...

- If Michael Jackson was alive
- and if the moon was a potato
- then unruly orangutans would be to blame for 9/11

The first two if's (Michael Jackson and the potato moon) are not the problem. The problem is the unruly orangutans being behind 9/11. This conclusion does not follow from the two if's.

Similarly...
- If the Biblical God existed
- and if life had a purpose
- then God would make life in every solar system

Just as before, the two if's (Biblical God and life having a purpose) are not the problem. The problem is the conclusion that God would then create life in every solar system. This conclusion does not follow from the two if's.

We concluded life must serve a practical purpose for God.
If it is only practical on Earth, then it must be practical for something here.

If he did create life over and over again, then each should serve a purpose...

We should be able to understand something intelligent from the actions of that life in God's intent.

You made several arguments, that though true, neither support not contradict the OP, or your position.

What do you think my position is?

You failed to understand the definition of intelligence - what or why is something intelligent, what can we observe about intelligence? It repeats stuff that works...

Where did you find this definition of intelligence?

The only reason to ever repeat something that works is if the solution diminishes. For example, if I eat something, it solves the problem of my hunger. True enough, I would repeat the action of eating once I am hungry again. But I would not eat until I am hungry again. I would not repeat this action until the need arises.

In the case of life, God wanted or needed life (for reasons unknown). Then he made life. Now there is life. So why would he need to make more life? Insisting that God create more life is like insisting a person that just ate has more food. The person already satisfied his need for food, so why would he eat more food? God already satisfied his need for life, so why would he create more life?

If one planet containing life was enough, why would it be necessary to have life in every solar system?

And if it was not... how do I work with this? If true, so what, if false, then we have the OP again.

Then I suggest you add a third "if" to your OP. As it stands, your OP looks like this:

- If the Biblical God existed
- and if life had a purpose
- then God would make life in every solar system

For your argument to work, your OP would need to look like this:

- If the Biblical God existed
- and if life had a purpose
- and if one planet containing life is not enough
- then God would make life in other solar systems

But until you alter your OP this way, your OP is a non sequitur

[Willum]

[Replying to post 32 by Justin108]

Ah, so instead of adding a counter-view or improvement, as was requested, you thought to sink the entire OP.

OK.
Sure that's one option...
Consider your single possible point made, "life doesn't have to be anywhere, except Earth if there were a God."
and yet I'd already mentioned that this possibility was understood, is just as undemonstratable and the far worse crime; boring.
Yawn.

(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
Yawn...

So, instead of "everywhere," might I suggest that it is reasonable to suggest simply that there should be more of it?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 32 by Justin108]

Ah, so instead of adding a counter-view or improvement, as was requested, you thought to sink the entire OP.

I didn't sought to sink the OP. I sought to point out that it is flawed. How do you expect anyone to give a counter-view to an OP that is itself flawed?

- If Michael Jackson was alive
- and if the moon was a potato
- then unruly orangutans would be to blame for 9/11

Please give me a counter-view to the above argument

So, instead of "everywhere," might I suggest that it is reasonable to suggest simply that there should be more of it?

By all means, as long as you give me a reason why you suggest there should be more of it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 34 by Justin108]

Nah, I will concede it is incomplete.
That's why I asked for counter-views.

Your single "sink the OP" entirely view has been acknowledged.
OK.

(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
(Jeopardy theme playing.)
Yawn...

By all means, as long as you give me a reason why you suggest there should be more of it.

Because intelligent life doesn't usually do things only once.

Your refutation was God might have done it only once.
Insufficient.
GM might have only produced one car.
Mankind might have only gone whitewater rafting once.

An indicator of intelligence is that things are repeated in a logical way.
Even if so, you brought up an interesting sub-topic, life has been repeated on Earth.

Since this is so, we should be able to divine God's intent from it.

[Kenisaw]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

I'm still not clear why we would find more life in the universe, IF there were a Biblical god...

Can someone logically tie that together for me?

[Justin108]

By all means, as long as you give me a reason why you suggest there should be more of it.

Because intelligent life doesn't usually do things only once.

We have given you several examples of intelligent life doing things once. Are you seriously just going to ignore them? Are you that eager to waste our time?

Your refutation was God might have done it only once.
Insufficient.

My refutation is that there is no perceivable need to do it several times. Unless you can demonstrate such a need, your argument is invalid. You are essentially trying to shift the burden of proof by demanding I somehow demonstrate that God would only create life on one planet. Nice try though.

Mankind might have only gone whitewater rafting once.

"Mankind"? Oh this is where you try to twist Kenisaw's statement that he (an individual) went whitewater rafting only once. Kenisaw (an intelligent individual) did something only once, therefore God (an intelligent individual) may well have done something only once.

An indicator of intelligence is that things are repeated in a logical way.

You keep saying that but you have not once demonstrated that it is true.

Suppose I (an intelligent individual) had a tumor (a problem). Suppose I then had a surgery (a solution) to remove the tumor. Now the tumor is gone. The surgery was a success. Would it be unintelligent of me to have this surgery only once? What need would there be to have several surgeries when a single surgery was enough to solve my problem?

I already demonstrated this argument but apparently I need to repeat myself. If God needed life (for whatever reason), and made life, then his problem is solved. Why would he then need more life?

[ttruscott]

If there were a Biblical God, wouldn't we find a lot more life in the universe?

I find the religious part of this question to be that life is not the reason for creation but rather the redemption of HIS sinful elect is the reason for life. Thus it says nothing about the lack of life in the rest of the universe that only sinners are given life and that only on the prison planet, earth.

I suspect that once the physical universe is cleansed from evil and open to the holy and elect family of GOD, the (new) universe will indeed be filled with life.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 37 by Justin108]

We have given you several examples of intelligent life doing things once.

No you haven't. You've given several examples of intelligent things not doing things only once, in the context of an individual human being. Everything you have spoken of was repeated countless times, just not by one person.

Are you with your own argument yet?

1. You could not do whitewater rafting only once - someone else built the boats and equipment that were required to do it, if it were done only once, it would not be needed. Those intelligent individuals decided to do it, many times.
2. God is an alien, describing his motivation so summarily is presumptive. So you need to examine if God's motives are intelligent.

Suppose I (an intelligent individual) had a tumor (a problem). Suppose I then had a surgery (a solution) to remove the tumor. Now the tumor is gone. The surgery was a success. Would it be unintelligent of me to have this surgery only once? What need would there be to have several surgeries when a single surgery was enough to solve my problem?

How did we learn we could do this to a tumor?
Are you the only one to ever get a tumor, will no one ever get another?

Repetition/learning/improvement is the only intelligent answer.

My refutation is that there is no perceivable need to do it several times. Unless you can demonstrate such a need, your argument is invalid.

And I disagree - I do not see how you arrive at this conclusion. Please describe why it would be done once, and not again - he made a mistake? Ye of little faith.

Give me an example of something only done once by intelligence...
Nuclear warfare? Twice.
Using arsenic to treat STDs, hundreds of times.

Please, an example.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by Kenisaw]

One of the observations we make about an intelligent creator would be that it would do things for a purpose.
Things done for a purpose are repeated.