A new religion, IF THERE WAS A GOD:

Originally posted by DeepThought
Why insist on that ordering? This really is beyond the scope of this forum, but there is no reason for astronomers not to look for life elsewhere. An oxygen signature from an exoplanet would be very strong evidence for life outside the solar system. If life were found on an exoplanet there would be no way for us to exploit it, but I don't think it wou ...[text shortened]... extinct. For one thing there may be oil, which would be a very good reason for checking for it.

Who knows?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Get serious. Your premise is flawed.

If there was a god EXACTLY like you describe, you'd then be in here exclaiming how ridiculous it is to believe in THAT god.

Since religion has been banned from the Science forum on the basis of "ignorance", I wonder if atheism can be banned from the Spirituality forum on the basis of "ignorance".

Nah, probably not. The bitching and wailing would be too much to bear.

You figure it's ok for a GOD to demand HUMAN enemies be put to death? You figure it's ok for a GOD to say a man is worth 50 shekels and a woman 30?

You figure it's ok for a GOD to kill ALL the land animals on Earth in order to get back at so idiot humans? And leave the entire Ark gang with a stifling lack of genetic diversity, humans included, a diversity this god supposedly made in the first place. We KNOW lack of diversity is bad for ANY species.

Do your really think a real god would do all that BULLSHYTE things?

That is so OBVIOUSLY man made BECAUSE it imbibes this so-called god with human attributes, designed to let weak minded subjects believe this god has attributes a human can understand.

A real god would have attributes NO human could understand.

Think about our brain, a few trillion connections and such.

Suppose we thought about a brain that would occupy the entire universe with SEPTILLIONS of SEPTILLIONS of connections.

Just exactly how would a human with our set of connections ever get to know the mind of such a being? THAT I think is the difference between humans and some god.

You think about the difference between connections of humans VS a mouse.

Do you think a mouse could ever figure out the motivations and morality of a human?

That would be just a tiny fraction of the difference between a human and a real god.

There would be no way you could figure out such a being and for sure it would not single out a few people and have them go to some after life reward and dump the rest.

Do you think a human, having an ant colony, would go to a single individual ant, YOU TICK ME OFF and hit it with a thousand watt laser, expecting the other ants to begin to worship that human. Do you seriously think a human would do such a thing to an ANT COLONY?

Thinking through those analogies, how can you think a god would do all the ridiculously HUMAN things in the bible?

Originally posted by vivify
And that's in addition to the large number of pet owners, animal rights activists, people who pay to watch animals in zoos, aquariums, circus shows, rodeos, matadors, race horses, etc., in addition to members of religions that teach all living things are precious.

I have to point out that a large part of this has to do with our evolution. The 'pet owners' part certainly has more to do with our desire for community than any scientific interest in life.
I have always wondered what will happen when we create the first conscious computer. Will it have any interest in us? Will it have any interest in the world? These are evolved characteristics, so unless we program them in, they may not be there. It may just say 'I'm bored' and turn itself off.

Regarding life existing because of odds: not only have no signs of life been found anywhere outside of earth, but very few places have been found where life as we know out is even possible.
As I pointed out, but you seem to have totally ignored me, we simply haven't looked. Your claim is equivalent to going to Africa, standing on the beach, looking at 1 square meter of sand, and announcing that you cant see any animals therefore Africa must be devoid of animals.
From what little we do know of the universe, the number of planets where biological life is possible, are in the order of a billion billion. The number of places were intelligent life would be possible is lower, but not 'very few' as you claim. Experts on the matter estimate anywhere from a few thousand in our galaxy, to millions in our galaxy. And that's only one of 100 billion galaxies, and only one point in time of billions of years.

Originally posted by twhitehead

As I pointed out, but you seem to have totally ignored me, we simply haven't looked. Your claim is equivalent to going to Africa, standing on the beach, looking at 1 square meter of sand, and announcing that you cant see any animals therefore Africa must be devoid of animals.
From what little we do know of the universe, the number of planets where biol ...[text shortened]... y. And that's only one of 100 billion galaxies, and only one point in time of billions of years.

This is incorrect. I'm not saying life doesn't exist because have not found any yet; I'm saying based on what we know so far, the chances of finding life elsewhere are incredibly slim. You mention billions of billions of planets, but very few of those planets (that we know of) are in the Goldilocks Zone. The fact that we need a Goldilocks Zone for life as we know it to happen, eliminates billions of billions of planets from having a likely probability for life as we know it.

Originally posted by vivify
This is incorrect. I'm not saying life doesn't exist because have not found any yet; I'm saying based on what we know so far,

And I am saying that we really don't know a whole lot so far.

You mention billions of billions of planets, but very few of those planets (that we know of) are in the Goldilocks Zone.
That is simply a bias in our detection methods of planets. The data so far however, suggests two things:
1. A significant percentage of star systems do contain at least one planet in the goldilocks zone.
2. Life could arise in places other than the goldilocks zone.

The fact that we need a Goldilocks Zone for life as we know it to happen,
Except that isn't true.

eliminates billions of billions of planets from having a likely probability for life as we know it.
Leaving billions of billions that are in the goldilocks zone, yet for some reason you seem to think that they do not support life. Why is this? Of the three planets we know of in the goldilocks zone, Earth, Mars, and Venus, we know of life on one of them, and haven't yet ruled out life on the other two. Of the only planetary system we have studied in detail, one planet has life. Now surely using your 'extrapolation from one' methodology that you used so well earlier in the thread, this suggests that life should be pretty common in the universe. Yet you seem to think it is not. Either you know something I don't, or you have an agenda. Either way, you could enlighten me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I am saying that we really don't know a whole lot so far.

[b]You mention billions of billions of planets, but very few of those planets (that we know of) are in the Goldilocks Zone.
That is simply a bias in our detection methods of planets. The data so far however, suggests two things:
1. A significant percentage of star systems do contain at ...[text shortened]... t. Either you know something I don't, or you have an agenda. Either way, you could enlighten me.[/b]

Apart from the sheer odds there's currently no reason to think life exists outside of earth. It's kinda like the arguments theists use for god:

"Do you know everything that could possibly be known?"
"No."
"Do you know half of everything?"
"No."
"Do you know one percent of everything?"
"No."
"Could god exist in the over 99 percent of what you don't know?"
"I guess so."

This type of argument from probability is what theists have used to refute the idea that no god exists. This is bad argument, because there's no evidence that a god is even possible. Likewise, because there's no evidence that life outside of earth is possible, arguments from probability seem almost as dubious. Experiments with micro organisms outside of earth could change that, but I haven't yet heard of any that do. If you know of any such tests that do, then I'll gladly concede.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The real God is loving and forgiving, but also believes in justice and that unrepentant sinners must be punished.

That is one of the most abhorrent statements I have heard in a long time.
You are implying the literally MILLIONS of people who died at the hands of Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin DESERVED PUNISHMENT. So by that logic then, Pol Pot, Hitler and Idi Amin and the rest were just doing your god's work.

That is just one sick line of logic. Further proof of your self lobotomized tenth century paranoid brain.

Originally posted by vivify
Apart from the sheer odds there's currently no reason to think life exists outside of earth.

What are these 'sheer odds'? Walk me through it. As I already explained, the odds as far as I can see, suggest that life is extremely common outside the earth, and you haven't provided one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Instead you keep repeating your claim that it is unlikely. Either your are basing your argument on something you have not yet presented, in which case I must ask why are you being so secretive, or you want the conclusion to be true regardless of the evidence, in which case I must ask, what is so important about the conclusion?

This is bad argument, because there's no evidence that a god is even possible.
There is however, undeniable evidence that life is possible.

Likewise, because there's no evidence that life outside of earth is possible,
There is, actually plenty of evidence that life outside the earth is possible.

arguments from probability seem almost as dubious.
There is simply no comparison between the two arguments.

Experiments with micro organisms outside of earth could change that, but I haven't yet heard of any that do. If you know of any such tests that do, then I'll gladly concede.
I have no idea what sort of experiments you are talking about. Are you suggesting that life cannot survive a certain radius away from the earth? You do know they have put living things on the space station, and on the moon? Are you saying that if we put a microorganism on a spaceship it would die when it passed the orbit of Jupiter?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What are these 'sheer odds'? Walk me through it. As I already explained, the odds as far as I can see, suggest that life is extremely common outside the earth, and you haven't provided one shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

You seem to think that I'm saying life is *not* possible outside of earth. That isn't what I'm saying. All I'm saying, is that there's no evidence that life as we know it is possible outside of earth.

There are many reasons for this. Among them, is the rarity of liquidwater outside of earth, based on what we've seen so far. Another, is that oxygen on other planets is relatively scarce. Also, the extreme temperatures (by earth standards) on other planets, which are either to hot or too cold. According to this link, organisms cannot reproduce below 20 degrees Celsius:

http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1511

The hottest temperature a life has been found to withstand is 130 degrees Celsius:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4058-hot-bug-extends-temperature-limit-for-life.html#.U6cEDrGHeQI

However, the microbe couldn't replicate (reproduce) until the temperature was lowered. This means that as far as we know, life can only exist over temperatures -20 degrees C, and under temperatures of 130 degrees C. As a result, a planet must have liquid water, temperatures higher than -20 C and lower than 130 C, and have oxygen.

These are only three of the requirements for life as we know it, and each of these three conditions are have thus far been shown to be rare. Obviously, a planet that meets all three of these conditions would be even more rare. Consequently, there's no logical reason to assume that there "billions of billions" of planets in the Goldilocks Zone of their star, that meet all three of these requirements. And those are bare minimums; meeting these requirements doesn't guarantee life exists. For these reasons, it is logical to say that the chances of life outside of earth, are incredibly slim.

Are you saying that if we put a microorganism on a spaceship it would die when it passed the orbit of Jupiter?

No. I'm saying it's there are few places (if any) outside of Earth where life can survive, without man-made modifications.

Originally posted by vivify
You seem to think that I'm saying life is *not* possible outside of earth. That isn't what I'm saying. All I'm saying, is that there's no evidence that life as we know it is possible outside of earth.

Well, in the absence of direct evidence, we turn to probability. But you seemed to be claiming that the default stance is that it is not possible, which seems to be an extraordinary claim requiring some explanation.

Among them, is the rarity of liquidwater outside of earth, based on what we've seen so far.
What have you seen so far? There is liquid water occasionally on mars, and almost certainly in the past it had oceans. At least one moon of Jupiter has liquid water. And thats just in the solar system. What about the billion billion planets you haven't looked at?

Another, is that oxygen on other planets is relatively scarce.
No, it isn't. Atmospheric oxygen in the form we have on earth is scarce on other planets in the solar system. That is because they do not have plants. But life arose on earth prior to the oxygen rich atmosphere - because life created that atmosphere. Life certainly does not require such an atmosphere. And again, I have to point out that you made this claim based on looking at 8 planets out of a billion billion.

Also, the extreme temperatures (by earth standards) on other planets, which are either to hot or too cold.
Hence the name 'goldilocks zone'. And once again, I have to point out that you have only looked at 8 of a billion billion.

According to this link, organisms cannot reproduce below 20 degrees Celsius:
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1511
That should be -20 by the way.

These are only three of the requirements for life as we know it, and each of these three conditions are have thus far been shown to be rare.
Have they? How rare? It seems to me that from the example of the solar system, its at least one out of 8 planets and possibly Mars and some moons, and maybe even venus in the past or in its clouds.
But lets not forget the billions of billions of other planets you didn't look at.

Consequently, there's no logical reason to assume that there "billions of billions" of planets in the Goldilocks Zone of their star, that meet all three of these requirements.
Actually the temperature requirements are automatically met by the definition of 'goldilocks zone'. The existence of liquid water requirement is not that hard to meet. Water is pretty common.

And those are bare minimums; meeting these requirements doesn't guarantee life exists. For these reasons, it is logical to say that the chances of life outside of earth, are incredibly slim.
Except you have obviously got your facts all wrong. From what little we know of other planetary systems, it is almost certain that there are billions of billions of planets meeting your three conditions. Thats more than 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 planets.

So, did you just have your facts wrong, or do you have some other reason for thinking there is no life elsewhere?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well, in the absence of direct evidence, we turn to probability. But you seemed to be claiming that the default stance is that it is not possible, which seems to be an extraordinary claim requiring some explanation.

Right above where you typed that, is my quote where I say that I am *not* claiming life isn't possible elsewhere. I'm merely saying that there's no evidence that it is possible elsewhere.

What have you seen so far? There is liquid water occasionally on mars, and almost certainly in the past it had oceans. At least one moon of Jupiter has liquid water. And thats just in the solar system. What about the billion billion planets you haven't looked at?

http://www.racetomars.ca/mars/article_water.jsp

"While scientists have concluded that Mars, like Earth, was once a watery planet, there is little evidence to support the existence of liquid water today."

Seems like you're wrong regarding Mars. Furthermore, the existence of water on Jupiter''s moon doesn't change what I've said: that the existence of water has thus far shown to be rare. Not nonexistent; rare.

No, it isn't. Atmospheric oxygen in the form we have on earth is scarce on other planets in the solar system. That is because they do not have plants. But life arose on earth prior to the oxygen rich atmosphere - because life created that atmosphere. Life certainly does not require such an atmosphere. And again, I have to point out that you made this claim based on looking at 8 planets out of a billion billion.

Still doesn't change what I've said: that oxygen outside of earth is rare. Though I haven't looked at the "billion billion" other planets, based on what is currently known, what I've said is sound. Science goes by evidence, not conjecture. Your "billion billion" argument is mere conjecture.

Hence the name 'goldilocks zone'. And once again, I have to point out that you have only looked at 8 of a billion billion.

Also wrong. The surface of Venus, which even you acknowledged is in the Goldilocks Zone, doesn't have temperatures even close to what can support life as we know it.

That should be -20 by the way.

Elsewhere in my post, I said -20, so that was obviously just a mistake in typing.

Have they? How rare? It seems to me that from the example of the solar system, its at least one out of 8 planets and possibly Mars and some moons, and maybe even venus in the past or in its clouds.
But lets not forget the billions of billions of other planets you didn't look at.

More conjecture. You, who asks for evidence, have provided none of your own, that a viable possibility for life exists outside of earth. I've supported my position, you haven't. I showed evidence that an intelligent deity would be interested in learning about life, using examples from other intelligent beings (humans). You've shown nothing to support your claim to the contrary.

Why don't you start showing evidence, for a change, since you clearly have no problem demanding it from others? Show evidence that the god in the OP isn't possible, because it would allegedly be uninterested in humans.

Originally posted by sonhouse
IF there was a god, it might think like this, where you insert what a real god might be like. So your religion goes, this god would NEVER be jealous. This god would NEVER be spiteful, this god would be above all that with just one overriding attribute, unconditional love.

You could reference to that kind of god, knowing full well there may not be such a ...[text shortened]... med at lifting the spirits of mankind.

Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?

"Why didn't THAT kind of religion start 3000 years ago?"

Because it wouldn't be reality based and no one would follow it. 😵

Originally posted by vivify
"While scientists have concluded that Mars, like Earth, was once a watery planet, there is little evidence to support the existence of liquid water today."

Try Wikipedia and you will find quite a different story. You could also try NASA.

Seems like you're wrong regarding Mars.
No, I just have better sources.

Furthermore, the existence of water on Jupiter''s moon doesn't change what I've said: that the existence of water has thus far shown to be rare. Not nonexistent; rare.
But not all that rare. 1 out of 8 planets isn't bad. And we haven't really surveyed all the moons, but we know at least one has water.

Still doesn't change what I've said: that oxygen outside of earth is rare.
It does change the fact that this is not a point against life. Life does not require an oxygen rich atmosphere, so whether it is rare or not, is not relevant.

Though I haven't looked at the "billion billion" other planets, based on what is currently known, what I've said is sound.
What you have said is only sound to the point where you say oxygen rich atmospheres are on 1 out of 8 planets. Somehow you come to the conclusion that all other billion billion planets will not have oxygen. That seems to be an extraordinary claim totally contrary to the evidence.

Science goes by evidence, not conjecture. Your "billion billion" argument is mere conjecture.
I think you are quite confused about what science is, and what conjecture is.

Also wrong. The surface of Venus, which even you acknowledged is in the Goldilocks Zone, doesn't have temperatures even close to what can support life.
But it may have in the past.

More conjecture.
So anything I say about the billion billion planets out there is conjecture, but anything you say is .... what?

You, who asks for evidence, have provided none of your own, that a viable possibility for life exists outside of earth.
I have provided a billion billion planets. What more could you ask for?

I've supported my position, you haven't.
No, actually, you haven't. You made patently false claims about the rarity of certain requirements for life. And when I point out your errors you come up with 'conjecture'? Can't you at least be more inventive than that?
The question is why? Why is it so important to you that life be unique to earth?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Try Wikipedia and you will find quite a different story. You could also try NASA.

No, I just have better sources.

Prove it. Actually post some sort of evidence for a change.

But not all that rare. 1 out of 8 planets isn't bad. And we haven't really surveyed all the moons, but we know at least one has water.

Zero planets and only one moon outside of earth makes it pretty rare. If you count dwarf planets, that makes it even more rare.

It does change the fact that this is not a point against life. Life does not require an oxygen rich atmosphere, so whether it is rare or not, is not relevant.

The overwhelming portion of life that we know of does. But you're right, it's not a requirement, so I'll drop that point.

Science goes by evidence, not conjecture. Your "billion billion" argument is mere conjecture.
I think you are quite confused about what science is, and what conjecture is.

Maybe you're right. I should've said "baseless assertion".

So anything I say about the billion billion planets out there is conjecture, but anything you say is .... what?

I've supported what I've said with evidence. Apart from the bit about oxygen (which wasn't even a significant portion of my point), I've presented a sound argument.

You, who asks for evidence, have provided none of your own, that a viable possibility for life exists outside of earth.
I have provided a billion billion planets. What more could you ask for?

How about showing what about those planets shows life may exist? Simply bringing them up doesn't do it.

I've supported my position, you haven't.

No, actually, you haven't. You made patently false claims about the rarity of certain requirements for life. And when I point out your errors you come up with 'conjecture'? Can't you at least be more inventive than that?
The question is why? Why is it so important to you that life be unique to earth?[/b]

What false claims were made? Oxygen is rare, and so is liquid water. That's not false. The only thing I've said that's incorrect is that oxygen is important for life on other planets. I still have still other points that are solid.

And you still haven't shown any evidence to support your argument that a deity wouldn't be interested in human life. Seems that not only do you not plan to, but that you are unable to.

Originally posted by vivify
Prove it. Actually post some sort of evidence for a change.

But not all that rare. 1 out of 8 planets isn't bad. And we haven't really surveyed all the moons, but we know at least one has water.

Zero planets and only one moon outside of earth makes it pretty rare. If you count dwarf planets, that makes it even more rare.

[quote]
...[text shortened]... e interested in human life. Seems that not only do you not plan to, but that you are unable to.

There is one hitch in your theory: Oxygen wasn't needed for the first kind of life on Earth, they were anaerobic, used hydrogen or maybe sulphur:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_organism

So the fact that oxygen is rare isn't a deal breaker for life on other planets.

Besides, there is strong evidence for liquid oceans on at least two moons in the solar system and even the possibility of ice in craters on the moon forever in shadow.

There is definitely ice on Mars and it could be liquid underground so the last word has certainly not been said about life on Mars, that is still an open question.

If there is water and life starts using it, that life could well be able to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen so it could lead to an oxygenated world that way. I know that is pure speculation on my part, just pointing out the possibility.