So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design
So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
One improbable event is happenstance
Two improbable events is a coincidence
Three improbably events is a design
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design