thanny said:
I know its not exactly on topic, but if you cant really use the 'chances of' arguement to justify an afterlife (or lack thereof) because the chances of life creating iteself by chance (assuming you would believe this if you believe there is no hell) is far less then then 0.000000000000000000001% |
A. You missed my point, I wasn't saying it had a 0.0000001% chance of existing, I was saying that you have a 0.00000001% chance of believing the correct one, even if one existed. Purely because so many iterations of an afterlife have existed and so many more are yet to exist, we have no clue which one of the many thousands Millions of afterlifes is the true afterlife.
B. Please google Abiogensis. Life creating itself actually has a good chance of occuring. By no means near 0.0000000000001%. Much better chance than a hell existing simply because we have can observe it as it is part of the natural world, where as hell is supenatural and we have little evidence to even support any supernatural worlds, let alone a specific one.
Basically...
Origins of life = Observable, much evidence found on the creation of life.
Supernatural afterlife = Not observable, very little evidence to suggest one (esp. a specific one) exists.
Actually, here's a video explaining abiogenesis if you're interested...







