The world is relatively stupid and does not do enough thinking.

Something cannot be 'built' and be accidental. Think about that momentarily. If, as you say, life has been 'seeded', that isn't accidental either, it just moves the goal posts to the same consideration of that other (alleged) universe (you didn't mean galaxy; there are myriad galaxies in this universe).

I don't think you grasp the parameters of this argument, or all the elements you have to consider in order to do it justice.

Saying something is 'inevitable' is a tacit admission of intent, as it requires conscious determination.

The key word is conscious.

 

This question doesn't require a consideration of Earth at all. The concepts of the mathematical odds of existence take place far before Earth ever enters the picture.

 

My apologies , I assumed you meant existence on Earth rather that an existing state of matter. To answer the question I am not sure you will understand the answer but here goes anyway.

There is an infinite set of Chinese dolls, the ones that you open and inside is another doll . At the center of the dolls is a universe, in this universe is planet x or earth if you like, on earth by precise calculations and magnetic bottling scientists mimic the universe and create a ''sun'' (plasma), it is not an accident the scientists can do this, it is creation.
Now looking out from the center of the dolls the scientists observe ''darkness'' which is really just empty space that is illuminated but there is nothing reflecting light.
Now there is either a wall or there isnt a wall but there is a certainty there is space or a solid. Now if there was a solid wall , and outside of this wall was a scientist, they could have us bottled in, for what we mimic could be what is happening ''outside''.

 

I guess your search engine is broken then.
I'm not going to play your game and search for you.
I'll bet your favorite line of the so-called president is "I'm like really smart".

 

The firmament of the mind is a dangerous thing.



I would be Woody and the green things would be religion.

 

I'm not sure why you offered this anecdote. It addresses only how we perceive reality, and doesn't consider how it could have accidentally been created.

 

The only thing I could use my 'search engine' to do is discover that many people exist who hold your opinion.

It doesn't change the nature of the characterization. It is opinion. And baseless.

 

You miss the point that it does consider accidentally by considering intentionally. It's equally objective to say it could be intentionally, the probability of accidentally P=.5, the probability of intentionally P=.5,

There would be no way to distinguish a correct answer and P=1

 

That's demonstrably false, as it requires a sentient being to make the determination. If you are atttempting to claim that no sentience is required in order to achieve such an outcome, you cannot include a sentient being being required in your analogy.

 

It is not demonstrably false because we do not know what is beyond our limitation of observation, because of the boundaries of light intensity and magnitude, as the inverse square law dictates.

Size is relative, what we think is a large Universe could in reality be the size of a ''pea'' , we scaled the visual universe by using Earth for a reference, in reality we don't know if the visual universe is big or small.

The video link I provided shows you how small minded ''we'' are.

added- Consider if the Universe was infinite, how small would our finite visual universe look relative to an infinite Universe?

 

An axiom IS a premise. . . . which is no more than an assumption, no matter how strongly you believe it to be true.

I believe in God, you believe in these axioms, thereby making them your religion.

. . . . And God ADDS objectivity to our lives; no interpretation involved. Do you have opinions???. . . . ALL opinions are subjective.

BTW, that quote by your hero Einstein is a spin-off of Jesus' words in Matthew 25.

 

Quite clearly you do not know the difference between an axiom and a premise for argument, an axiom being a premise for argument.

For example an axiom would be, space is a higher ''power'' than ''god'' , even a ''God'' would need a volume of space to exist in.

Do you deny this axiom to be true?

p.s Einstein is not really my hero, I also have errors of his.

I do not make assumptions.

 

Quite clearly YOUR argument is faulty. . . . Is a cat a feline???

God does not need space to exist; do thoughts occupy space???

Obviously you ASSUME God does not exist.

. . . . And there are many facets of MY argument that you have evaded.

 

Like territorial acquisition, and irrational greed, and the multifarious ways toward self-enrichment and advantage? Indeed you're right, but at least getting rid of religion narrows down the motivations?

 

Well yes thoughts also occupy space, a God would indeed need space to exist in unless you are now stating that God has O dimensions, effectively not existing. I do not assume God does not exist, by logic I know your interpretation of god is false ideology and subjective that as even turned your god(s) into a superstar status idolising him.
I have evaded your argument? What argument? there is nothing you can say about a God that would be truthful and not subjective. You quite clearly are one of these stupid people of the world who does not understand how to be objective.

 

Men may find things to fight over, but men fighting happens every weekend on nights out for some, men does not equal masses fighting.

 

NONE of your OPINIONS are definitively factual, and you offer nothing as proof but your own self-declared omnipotent perspective. . . . Yet you have the audacity (and the insolence) to call ME stupid??? GOODBYE!!!

 

This this is every bit as likely with atheism. Everyone, you see believes in something. Every one is also biased in accord with and in favor of their own perception of reality. None of us possess all the relevant facts, not because we aren't smart enough but because we simply don't live long enough to acquire them all let alone fashion them into some sort of coherent vision. So we simply utilize the Alexandrian approach to the Gordian knot. We ignore the facts we do not yet know, cut away those facts that we do know but which are inconvenient to our cause, and voila we have the approach to reality that suits us at the moment. It may not however be very close to actual reality but the important thing is that it suits us right now.

Most people aren't stupid. They do, however, tend to be intellectually lazy. It is much easier to simply take a face value whatever BS some one else throws at us than it is to try to figure it out for ourselves. And let us face the facts, at least the few of them we can actually know, people can and do live out perfectly fulfilling lives and be a benefit to themselves and others, with out spending the least amount of time trying to understand how reality functions.

 

It is ok, you are quite welcome to reject reality and the truth and stay living in this make believe world of subjective falseness. I can tell by you stereotypical replies that you can not think past your beliefs.
Everything I ever offer is factual, just because you don't like the facts it does not mean you have to deny them and remain ''stupid''.
You can still have ''your'' God, but you can't have the subjective interpretation of a God.
FYI I do not claim any self omnipotent, however I do claim to 'see' the rudiment of errors in thinking of our past.

 

I agree that most people dont actually try to think at all but rather they blindly accept things to be, without questioning the integrity of the information.

 

To the OP, I agree with you mostly. However, I wouldn't exactly say that all atheists are rational. Atheists can be dumb followers just like religious people. Just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that they are automatically driven by logic and facts. One of my friends told me a few months ago that he was becoming more "spiritual". He also admitted to me that he was only really an atheist for the purpose of making fun of other people's religious and cultural beliefs. I've met other people who are atheist simply because they were brought up in an atheistic household or atheistic country. Sorry to say, but atheism is another belief system that can also be followed dogmatically by anyone.

That being said, I'm agnostic in principle and atheist in practice. My stance on religion is driven by rational logic and scientific facts. I've actually scrutinized both religion and scientific theories and have arrived at the conclusion that science is the way to go and that Christianity is deeply flawed. You have rational, open-minded atheists and then you have closed-minded dogmatic followers of atheistic thought. The former is fit to run society (assuming that they have no other disqualifying qualities), but the latter sure isn't.

 

It would be true that not all atheists are rational. However I feel even the ''dumbest'' of people can understand simplicity, so we must ask ourselves are these people pretending to be stupid? or are these people brainwashed by the subjectivity?

 

Most simply lack the desire or the skills to check the information themselves. Let's face it between 1/3 and 1/2 of eligible voters ever turn out to an election especially an off year election. Most people's world revolves around themselves, their families and for everything else out of sight is out of mind.

 

I think that in a lot of cases, they're just brainwashed by subjectivity.