Questions for atheists

[wildflowers1996]

I feel like both these claims can easily be debunked but I'm ignorant so I'd like to know what people think

- the infinite monkey thought experiment. It says in infinite time monkeys randomly walking on a typewriter could produce the entire works of Shakespeare. I think I agree.
But the theist was saying that the amount of time the universe has been around for is "way too short" for the existence of the Earth to be a coincidence. How would you respond?

The second point is that evolution can't explain DNA. I'm not even sure why they think this.

 

[3/4Dead]

This feels like three questions so I'm a little confused but I'll do my best. Also I'm not really a huge science guy, more of a philosophy dude.

Uh, I mean, logically speaking yeah inevitebly if monkeys are just smashing keys during an infinite period of time they could nail down Shakespere's work, I don't really see how this ties to theology though.

the amount of time the universe has been around for is "way too short" for the existence of the Earth to be a coincidence. How would you respond?

Common argument I hear, In my opnion, arguing about the length of length of the universe's existence is a bit silly, I mean, it's here isn't it.
It's not an entirely scientific repsonse, but we can only prove so much of the existence of earth before human documentation (besides stuff like fossils) since it's harder to find but the universe has probably existed for like- an innumerable amount of time that human science can't calculate, so I'm not really sure what they mean by too short.

evolution can't explain DNA. I'm not even sure why they think this.

I'm extra confused about this one, since it's kinda vauge. DNA is in everything, every living thing has DNA, always have, it's not really a matter of evolution. Unless they mean specifically primate-to-human change of DNA, in which case, we don't have a living common ancestor to compare to so there's no way to tell exactly how it's changed over time.

 

[Mirrory Me]

- the infinite monkey thought experiment. It says in infinite time monkeys randomly walking on a typewriter could produce the entire works of Shakespeare. I think I agree.

I don't think quite as Shakespeare... Unless the monkeys evolved to be smarter...

 

[jar-baby]

I think there are good arguments for the existence of a creator. The teleological argument you seem to be referring to is one of them. But personally, I just don't find myself all that interested in these arguments. Say we accept there's a creator because, for instance, we think the designs of the Earth or biological organisms are too complex to have come about coincidentally. What next? This doesn't tell us about the nature of this God, or what the purpose of our existence is, or which principles we should live our lives according to. For all we know, that God could be a malevolent force (like the Gnostic demiurge) who wants to deceive humanity, or a higher life form that created the world as a science experiment.

I get that proving the existence of a God is usually the first step in arguments that attempt to prove some form of theism that may involve revelation, for instance, which would inform one's existence, or provide a sense of meaning, or help one decide whether to ctb. I just think that even if we knew a creator existed, it would be pretty hard to find the answers to those questions. And a desire to find those answers is—iirc—why you're interested in answering the question of God's existence.

I don't really know why evolution wouldn't be able to explain DNA, but I'm no biologist. I don't understand why they think the universe has been around for too short an amount of time for Earth to come to exist either. Are they referring specifically to the fact that Earth is able to sustain life? If so, I suggest you check out the anthropic principle.

Uh, I mean, logically speaking yeah inevitebly if monkeys are just smashing keys during an infinite period of time they could nail down Shakespere's work, I don't really see how this ties to theology though.

The idea is (I think) that if the universe is around for long enough, eventually one of the many planets that are formed randomly will fulfil the conditions to sustain life (even though the fact of it being able to sustain life, like the idea of monkeys writing Shakespeare, initially seems to be a remarkable thing).

 

[3/4Dead]

The idea is (I think) that if the universe is around for long enough, eventually one of the many planets that are formed randomly will fulfil the conditions to sustain life (even though the fact of it being able to sustain life, like the idea of monkeys writing Shakespeare, initially seems to be a remarkable thing).

Aaah, okay, if that's the case then I understand. I think tried to understand it very literally and I think that's how I wound up scratching my head haha. I see how it connects to the universe not being a coincidence/too short idea now, thanks.