Yes you have got it.
God has a sense of humour.
After all, he created it.
He's not going to make it too easy for his 'scientists'. There would be no fun in that. He is testing them, at the same time as they try to test him.
But he is the daddy.
He created mystery to give 'scientists' a reason to exist.
But at the same time he is testing their faith in him. There will be retribution for those that can't give an adequate reason to doubt him.

I have spoken .......again.

Disagree. Unless you were talking about life forms contemporaneous with us. A planet might [i now [/ibe outside the Goldilocks zone, but may have been in it in the dim and distant past; or else may be within it at some future point.

So, for example, when the Sun expands into a red giant, it is possible that the Earth will end up within the inner limits of the zone, because the zone itself will move.

Then there is the possibility of a planet too close to a star to on the face of it support life, but tidally locked (like the moon) so the same face always turns towards the sun; one side always too hot; dark side way too cold; but may be plenty of scope for life around the twilight zone.

To prove life elsewhere, it doesn't have to be there now. It would be enough to find proof of extinct life elsewhere, eg on Mars.

God : "Ah-ha, so Mr Scientist, you finally died and want to come into heaven ?"
Scientist : "Yes please God"
God : "But you didn't believe in me, you spent all your life trying to dis-prove me"
Scientist : "Ah, well, I can explain all that..."
God : "I gave you an inquisitive mind and you spent all your time telling people how I didn't make the world all by myself"
Scientist : "Well you have to admit God, its a bit far fetched"
God : "I gave you a reason to exist, gave you an inquisitive mind and still you deny my existence"
Scientist : "...and the dinosaurs ?"
God : "Fook off, I'm not talking about the dinosaurs"
Scientist : "But were they a red herring ?"
God : "And I'm not talking about the red herrings either, they were a mistake, wrong colour"
Scientist : "So you gave us inquisitive minds, made us in your image, made us doubt you, but its our fault that we questioned you ?"
God : "You're not coming in..."
Scientist : "What a barstard"
God : "...ever"

Are you are getting a feel for how easy it is too argue the case on God's side?
It's pimps!
God made logic for Man, but he kept a special kind of logic for himself in a cookie jar, and you're not having any.

TBH It's pretty easy to argue the case for or against the existence of God, the impossible part is winning the argument with someone who's already made up their mind.

Don't forget, we are seeing some of these planets as they were thousands, if not millions of years ago, so they may be as different now as earth is compared to the dinosaur era.

It's only easy to argue the case for the existence of God if you choose to omit minor components like logic and evidence from your argument.

As for your second point, it's bollox. At least in the case of those who don't believe. I don't know a single atheist who wouldn't change their opinion tomorrow if compelling evidence of God's existence came to light. Theists, on the other hand...

And yet theists would argue otherwise. That their logic is often false or flawed is an irrelevance to them. Thus Anselm and Descartes still enjoy popularity among believers despite the clear paucity of ontological 'reasoning'.
It's not good enough just to say the arguments lack logical or empirical credibility. They have to be countered with better logic.

On your second point, which I believe to be critical of mine, you should be more careful before you use words like 'bollox'. The argument is made on an (albeit unstated but at least to me self-evident) premise that as yet there is no compelling evidence of the existence of a supreme being. In this light my original statement still holds true.

Maybe if I'd said that 'in the light of science and logic it is as easy to correctly argue against the existence of God as it is to argue for the existence of God in the light of ignorance and superstition', then we will find common ground.

I disagree. Most theists I have discussed the matter with don't even make the pretence that logic or evidence are important. They see blind faith - in the face of all available evidence - as a virtue. And whilst the few who do try to use logical arguments may consider it irrelevant that their logic is flawed, that does not make their argument any more credible.



Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Any argument that is based on flawed logic (or no logic at all) is fairly easy to counter.



Only in the way that if you take the recourse to facts and evidence away from any argument, it becomes 'easy' to argue in favour of either side.



That's true for any argument, about any subject.

Except in the case of blind faith, as you argue yourself in your first point. I wouldn't argue that their arguments are credible, but getting them to see or agree to it is an entirely different matter.



Exactly. (as above)


Agreed, but it's particular pertinent to metaphysical arguments.

So your original post maybe ought to have said:

"It's pretty easy to make a sound argument against the existence of God, and it's easy to make a poor, illogical argument for the existence of God that is unsupported by facts or evidence. What's impossible is getting a theist to change his mind because he's already chosen to ignore the evidence in favour of his own belief."

I guess my problem with your first post was that you seemed to be implying that either position was equal to the other, and that both sides were likely to be equally stubborn when it came to changing their opinions.

Perhaps I could have made my own position clearer in the original post. No implication was intended as to the rights and wrongs of the argument, merely the facility of having the argument. It is just as easy for the superstitious to argue a case out of pure belief, however irrational that belief may be, as it is for a materialist to argue through sound reason and science.

Your perceived inplicaton has however elicited, (in my view anyway), an enjoyable little exchange.

Exactly!
Which was the entire point of my foolery.
Am I wasting my time?

Well I saw what you were trying to do. Can't speak for anyone else though...

I now understand what you were trying to say, but I'm still a little confused as to the point you were trying to make in saying it. Doesn't it go without saying that it's easy to make an argument in favour of any preposterous position, provided that it's not a particularly strong argument?

Isn't it a bit like saying that it's easy to play chess, as long as you don't mind losing all the time?

Excuse me ... but could you just cut out all this erudite and polite discussion and eventual agreement please?
It's not what we come to this forum for.

We're bonding here mate.
Bond or butt out!

Yes, Mr. Barbudo. I have to say I'm inclined to agree, sir. I will of course comply with your request just as soon as I've analysed it more thoroughly.

Yes. I suppose if there is a point it is that there are few such preposterous positions that are put so often or defended so strongly (however irrationally) as this one.

Isn't it a bit like saying that it's easy to play chess, as long as you don't mind losing all the time?
A bit, except people that lose all at chess all the time tend to know they're doing so.

I bet the Christian ones don't.

The furthest away we have so far been able to find is only about 20.000 light years, but the point isn't quite that. IF we ever get a signal from taht planet, then it was sent using technology those aliens had 20,000 years ago. Which would suggest that they are scarily more advanced now.

Of course, once we develop the technology to see planets million of light years away,we may find an early-Earth clone, but irritatingly would be unlikely to ever know whether intelligent life developed similarly there as here, and whether there are aliens at a similar stage of evolution similarly looking at the discovery of a planet orbiting Sol and wondering the same thing.

By the way, if you're interested in the huge number of exoplanets discovered to date, have a looky here: [urlhttp://exoplanetology.freebase.com/[/url

Or you could go looking for them yourself:
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16512017[/url

Well, 2 hours to go before Earth has a really near miss from an asteroid which was only detected yesterday.

At around 4pm asteroid 2012 BX34 will pass within about 37,500 miles of Earth - less than a fifth of the distance to the Moon.

As long as there's no-one driving it, we have nothing to worry about though!

Ha! Missed.


It actually wasn't there on Thursday, but God's been reading this forum and thought he'd have a laugh.