Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:If the solar system is "fine tuned", then why were the other planets created by the "fine-tuner"? If Earth was all that was needed, then the other planets just used up time better used to plant fossils or something. It isn't as if they fill any function, and they aren't even mentioned in the Bible (showing what the "inspired words of God" are worth as a treatise on astronomy). Any astro-pologist around?

This is an argument from personal incredulity.

Care to answer the question, or are you just trolling?

It is. Just because you cannot divine the mind of the Creator does not mean that there is no purpose for those planets where there exists no life. Is there any function in painting an abstract picture other than to express oneself? Why does creation need any more of a reason than art?

There is no evidence of "purpose". Science says that if there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe that it is true. If I claim that my reflecting telescope was positioned in a special way by the Illuminati that was meant to send me a message about their return, and there is no evidence for this claim, it is completely fallacious to say "Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true".

I'd be rather pissed off if I was Venus, it could have ended up more promising than it did.

Why was the cosmos fine-tuned for the leprosy bacterium?

Nautilidae wrote:

There is no evidence of "purpose". Science says that if there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe that it is true. If I claim that my reflecting telescope was positioned in a special way by the Illuminati that was meant to send me a message about their return, and there is no evidence for this claim, it is completely fallacious to say "Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true".

I suggest the following reasons for the existence of the non-Earth planets:

1) So astrologers can make predictions.

2) For navigational purposes...Venus is bright at night.

3) To block nasty extra-solar system asteroids that would otherwise collide with earth.

4) A rich source of raw materials when we have the technology to exploit them.

5) In the case of Mercury, to shield Earth from solar flares.

Atheistoclast wrote:
I suggest the following reasons for the existence of the non-Earth planets:

All of which are baseless.

1) So astrologers can make predictions.

Wow. They were created so that astrologers could study their movement? That's as logical as saying that God made the sky blue so that we could think it was beautiful.

2) For navigational purposes...Venus is bright at night.

We can use the sun for navigational purposes too. We don't necessarily need the stars for navigation; it's simply one method.

3) To block nasty extra-solar system asteroids that would otherwise collide with earth.

Why would you create entire planets to block asteroids rather than simply sending asteroids on a different path? That's much more convenient. Surely God didn't need to create asteroids.

4) A rich source of raw materials when we have the technology to exploit them.

You cannot be serious. You're claiming that the other planets in our solar system were created so that we might be able to exploit their resources via unknown mechanisms at an unknown time in the future if ever? This is completely unprecedented; you're actually appealing to an event that hasn't happened or may not ever happen in order to support your worldview. I congratulate you

5) In the case of Mercury, to shield Earth from solar flares.

Why even create solar flares in the first place?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:

There is no evidence of "purpose". Science says that if there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe that it is true. If I claim that my reflecting telescope was positioned in a special way by the Illuminati that was meant to send me a message about their return, and there is no evidence for this claim, it is completely fallacious to say "Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true".

I suggest the following reasons for the existence of the non-Earth planets:

1) So astrologers can make predictions.

2) For navigational purposes...Venus is bright at night.

3) To block nasty extra-solar system asteroids that would otherwise collide with earth.

4) A rich source of raw materials when we have the technology to exploit them.

5) In the case of Mercury, to shield Earth from solar flares.

A better explanation for the existance of non-earth planets is to be found in models of the solar systems formation based on physical laws which don't require asserting the existance of a creator that doesn't really answer any questions and just leaves us as ignorant as we were before.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:

There is no evidence of "purpose". Science says that if there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe that it is true. If I claim that my reflecting telescope was positioned in a special way by the Illuminati that was meant to send me a message about their return, and there is no evidence for this claim, it is completely fallacious to say "Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't true".

Oh, look! It is "making shit up time"!

Atheistoclast wrote:I suggest the following reasons for the existence of the non-Earth planets:

1) So astrologers can make predictions.

As if astrology is a science...

Atheistoclast wrote:2) For navigational purposes...Venus is bright at night.

My bold.

Do the names "the Morning Star" and "the Evening Star" tell you anything?

Atheistoclast wrote:3) To block nasty extra-solar system asteroids that would otherwise collide with earth.

Again, why would the asteroids be there in the first place, if the solar system is fine tuned? Sounds like sloppy design and a slap-dash solution after some trial and error...

Atheistoclast wrote:4) A rich source of raw materials when we have the technology to exploit them.

Oooh! The omniscient gawd knew we would invent spaceflight, but he managed to botch the book he inspired to such a degree that we're here dissing the ol' sky-fairy.

Atheistoclast wrote:5) In the case of Mercury, to shield Earth from solar flares.

Pretty sloppy to make a sun that emits solar flares... or a "shield" that isn't shielding us all the time.

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Varangian wrote:

As if astrology is a science...

Actually, "astrologer" can also be used to describe someone who studies the movement of stars in general.

Nautilidae wrote:

Varangian wrote:

As if astrology is a science...

Actually, "astrologer" can also be used to describe someone who studies the movement of stars in general.

Well, the astrologers did, but mostly so they could make shit up. That proper astronomy arose from it was a spin-off effect that shows that when you ditch the metaphysics, science happens.

The answer is obvious: to serve as listening posts to make sure no one was having butt sex anywhere in the vicinity. After all butt sex is the worst thing ever.

Varangian wrote:

Nautilidae wrote:

Varangian wrote:

As if astrology is a science...

Actually, "astrologer" can also be used to describe someone who studies the movement of stars in general.

Well, the astrologers did, but mostly so they could make shit up. That proper astronomy arose from it was a spin-off effect that shows that when you ditch the metaphysics, science happens.

I know. I'm just trying to eliminate any ambiguity. I will allow no exploits that allow him to somehow argue his clusterfuck of a worldview.

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "When the moon is in the Seventh House..." )

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

2) As a consequence of my personal incredulity and ignorance, the solar system was not created.

You are affected with creationophobia....get some help.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

(bold mine)

Actually, the solar system is far from "harmonious and stable". It is incredibly violent.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

2) As a consequence of my personal incredulity and ignorance, the solar system was not created.

You are affected with creationophobia....get some help.

No. His point is that you are making an extremely flimsy case based on phenomena that are already explained with theories that actually match observations. You take phenomena that are associated with certain side effects and then claim that they were created for the purpose of creating those side effects. All of this is based on zero evidence.

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

2) As a consequence of my personal incredulity and ignorance, the solar system was not created.

You are affected with creationophobia....get some help.

Kettle, meet pot.

Planets aren't even mentioned in the Babble, while astronomers and scientists have been able to explain how the solar system formed and observed ongoing planetary-forming processes around other stars. My incredulity is due to the fact that there are faithheads and cretinists who are so dense that they need Mr. Magic Sky-pixie to explain how things came about. I'm amazed that you haven't adopted NephilimFree's geocentric model, as well as his explanation on how the Moon became cratered...

Varangian wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

2) As a consequence of my personal incredulity and ignorance, the solar system was not created.

You are affected with creationophobia....get some help.

Kettle, meet pot.

Planets aren't even mentioned in the Babble, while astronomers and scientists have been able to explain how the solar system formed and observed ongoing planetary-forming processes around other stars. My incredulity is due to the fact that there are faithheads and cretinists who are so dense that they need Mr. Magic Sky-pixie to explain how things came about. I'm amazed that you haven't adopted NephilimFree's geocentric model, as well as his explanation on how the Moon became cratered...

I am going to laugh hysterically if he turns out to support it.

orpheus wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Your arguments are pathetic, but it is fun to see you twist and turn, trying to force-fit your worldview to reality.

Your argument is this:

1) I don't know why anyone would create the solar system the way it is - even though it is harmonious and stable.

(bold mine)

Actually, the solar system is far from "harmonious and stable". It is incredibly violent.

Not only that but it comes with an expiry date

Largenton wrote:

amused wrote:The other planets helped clear the solar system of asteroids much faster than earth could do working at it alone.

If I remember rightly, Jupiter actually throws the occasional asteroid our way. I think it was on Brian Cox's recent show, or something similar.

Yes. It is caused by orbital harmonics. The asteroid belt is banded with gaps. The orbits within these gaps are unstable because they are harmonic orbits with Jupiter, meaning the year for these orbits are whole fractions of Jupiter's. So every so often they get a nice long nudge from Jupiter at the same location in its orbit until it becomes highly eccentric and crosses earths orbit.

So if God fine tuned the solar system, he intended earth to be a shooting gallery.

Last time I checked, the planets were not in any danger of colliding with each other.