- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59
Even assuming that there is no life on the other planets in our solar system we are faced with the [b]fact that 1 in 8 planets we know of has LIFE.
How many planets do you think are out there?[/b]
I feel like making you happy and saying "Duh !!!! What's a planet ?"
I think it is very exciting indeed that since I was a kid hundreds of planets have been discovered. I think that news is great and exciting.
I have the feeling that because I am a Christian, you maybe expect me to not know that other than the eight solar planets have been detected ?
Stick around. Maybe they'll even find some life on one of them.
That's the chief thing they are looking for.
They look for water then they surmise about life.
More power to them ! But what it is is what it is right now.
13 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou mean they haven't been here yet. Not the same thing at all.
Everywhere on earth we have looked, we have found life. We haven't really looked very many other places.
[b]If there is life out there, they haven't looked here yet.
You mean they haven't been here yet. Not the same thing at all.
That's two things we know about it.
Neither of which tells us very much at all. Its like one grain of sand o ...[text shortened]... ,000,000) you have looked at maybe 2, and found life on 1.
Sorry, but you know next to nothing.[/b]
Or maybe they have and determined we're no where near able to relate to them.
I guess the better way to say it would be: they have made no contact with us.
Sorry, but you know next to nothing.
The more we know, the more we know that we don't know very much.
The field continues to expand, the horizon continues to enlarge, no matter how much distance is traveled or how much ground is gained, we are left with the sense that we haven't even started.
Huh. That's kinda odd, isn't it?
If we'd never started to look, our ignorance would not be so great.
Our knowledge continues to be exponentially smaller than our ignorance.
The constants (the things we know) don't change all that much, whereas the peculiar (the things we don't know) aren't really all that significant.
For instance: life before we knew Planck's Constant is pretty much the same afterward.
People are born, they die, they marry, they divorce, they get jobs and go on vacations, eat, sleep and sit on the toilet.
The peculiar things we pick up in our quest to know more don't have a lot of sway on the things we do know, and it is the things we do know--- the constants--- which remain fixed throughout.
To pin our hopes on the peculiar as somehow capable of transforming the constants is, at its core, childish.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
13 Feb 14
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfie
seems odd that somebody would 'fine tune' the universe for the purpose of supporting life........and then go ahead and make it so inhospitable and dangerous to life.
I said I think this is a fair question to ask.
A few possibilities I think could be:
1.) The distances between places where there is life are just too great for us to ever know.
2.) Life is sparse now but will be more prevalent in the future. Ie. We are in on a unique thing early.
3.) The opposite of the previous theory. There WAS more life but for some reason it is gone now. Maybe we're the last of a dying off breed.
4.) The Creator has it so because He wants us to contemplate our utterly awesome uniqueness.
I mean it is not altogether impossible that God wants to blow your mind, for now.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipMy goal in this thread has never been to convert you to atheism. That was a comment on your apparent belief that admitting you are wrong on this point is tantamount to being converted to atheism and your apparent belief that that is the goal of anyone who disagrees with you.
I think your goal should be less ambitious than to convert me to atheism.
I'd be impressed with just a sound argument for it not packaged in a facade of academia.
You are not interested in a sound argument unless it comes to the conclusion you want. You have already admitted as such, so your statement that you will be impress is an outright lie.
What was it you really wanted me to understand about your Lottery Ticket example as it relates to the Anthropic Principle ?
The Anthropic Principle basically states that when you look at the in initial conditions of the universe, you will necessarily - as a matter of basic logic - find that they are the exact conditions necessary for the universe as we see it - and that this is not a matter of extraordinary luck.
My lottery ticket example points out the difference between the probability of picking the ticket you picked vs picking the winning ticket. The former probability is 1. ie it is certain. The latter is highly improbable. My point is that so far you have only show us that we have picked a ticket, you have not shown us that we have the winning ticket. You have attempted to show us we have the winning ticket by:
1. Quoting the Bible.
2. Quoting other people just as incredulous as you at having a ticket - but not one of whom gives any reasoning as to why they think they hold the winning ticket - other than again quoting the Bible.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadHyperbole.
And what it is right now, it total and utter ignorance as to the prevalence of life on other planets.
Total and utter infers that we know absolutely nothing, which is not the case.
We know something about the neighboring planets within our solar system as it relates to life: it isn't on any of them!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have read over your Lottery Ticket point a number of times. You introduced this matter and seemed to want to put it into my mouth.
My goal in this thread has never been to convert you to atheism. That was a comment on your apparent belief that admitting you are wrong on this point is tantamount to being converted to atheism and your apparent belief that that is the goal of anyone who disagrees with you.
[b]I'd be impressed with just a sound argument for it not packaged in a facad ...[text shortened]... easoning as to why they think they hold the winning ticket - other than again quoting the Bible.
After years of the Copernican concept that earth and humanity was not so privileged after all, latter researchers changed somewhat. The extremely narrow range of a variety of values had to be calibrated very delicately for the universe to behave as it does, and allow life as to develop.
Do you think all those who have remarked on this coincidence to be "incredulous" ?
You would accuse Arnold Pensias of being "incredulous" then for this statement ?
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural' ) plan."
So you would accuse Henry Schaefer of being "incredulous" for this statement ?
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
If you find these professional scientists "incredulous" for these statements then I would say you are simply just so biased against putting things in terms which bother your atheistic world view.
Now again, without you insisting I am making your Lottery Ticket winning verses choosing mistake, tell why this statement (which mentions Deism not Theism ) faults the speaker for being "incredulous."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow would you go about trying to discover that a highly intelligent civilization was on some distant planet, saying you had great funds to do so ?
And what it is right now, it total and utter ignorance as to the prevalence of life on other planets.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGo tell NASA that, they have been spending billions of dollars on that question and still are. You could save them an awful lot of money!
We know something about the neighboring planets within our solar system as it relates to life: it isn't on any of them!
But even if you were right (by some fluke of luck, not because you actually know anything), it still would tell us practically nothing whatsoever about the prevalence of life on planets in general - except that it is not on 7 of them. That leaves > 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to investigate.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipBut for some odd reason you still don't understand what I said. What is so hard to understand? Ask me questions about it, don't just avoid it and try to flood me with more quotes.
I have read over your Lottery Ticket point a number of times.
Do you think all those who have remarked on this coincidence to be "incredulous" ?
I am not sure if that is the word I would use. I do think that those that came to the same conclusion as you, were wrong to do so. It is also interesting how many of them clearly feel that the conclusion is important to their religious beliefs.
But why did you produce more quotes? Do you think I am not aware of how many people have commented on it? Do you think quoting more people supports your case? Do you think drowning me out with quotes makes you 'win'?
I would seriously like to know what you were thinking when you dug up those quotes and posted them here - especially considering my comments on that practice previously in this thread.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipNEdd.
I have read over your Lottery Ticket point a number of times. You introduced this matter and seemed to want to put it into my mouth.
After years of the Copernican concept that earth and humanity was not so privileged after all, latter researchers changed somewhat. The extremely narrow range of a variety of values had to be calibrated very delicately for ...[text shortened]... when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." [/quote][/b]
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by sonshipTelescopes obviously. There isn't much else. There are various SETI projects attempting it now. But there is as yet no project that can do more than a cursory glance and our nearest neighbours - and certainly nothing that can conclusively rule out intelligent life for any star system other than our own.
How would you go about trying to discover that a highly intelligent civilization was on some distant planet, saying you had great funds to do so ?
And don't forget that for much of this discussion you said 'life' not 'intelligent life'.
We haven't even ruled out life on the moon let alone Mars - although it clearly isn't flourishing on either as much as it does on earth.
14 Feb 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut even if you were right (by some fluke of luck, not because you actually know anything)...
Go tell NASA that, they have been spending billions of dollars on that question and still are. You could save them an awful lot of money!
But even if you were right (by some fluke of luck, not because you actually know anything), it still would tell us practically nothing whatsoever about the prevalence of life on planets in general - except that it is not on 7 of them. That leaves > 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to investigate.
I find it comical how you constantly flip-flop your position using words and concepts as though they are interchangeable when they mean something else entirely.
I would love to help them save money, but they're in the business of spending it so I think it's kind of a hopeless cause to offer my suggestions.
If they proposed sending machinery to the moon which would enable a dig to the center of the moon in an effort to find possible life within its core, would you say it's money well-spent... or would you think otherwise?
The point: while I am all for exploratory science in the name of expanded knowledge, I want that knowledge to actually improve life and the pursuit of happiness.
Finding life on some distant planet in some far-off solar system--- even life as equally developed or more than ours--- doesn't really have a lot of application for me when it comes to putting my kids through college, or even what brand of toilet paper I'm going to buy at the store.
It's a peculiar pursuit which simply cannot meaningfully alter the life of man.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Feb 14
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
But for some odd reason you still don't understand what I said. What is so hard to understand? Ask me questions about it, don't just avoid it and try to flood me with more quotes.
No I don't think I will go after it like pulling your teeth. If the point is so very cogent and you understand it then you can make your point in other words.
[b]Do you think all those who have remarked on this coincidence to be "incredulous" ?
I am not sure if that is the word I would use.
Check above. I am sure that that was the word you used.
Quoting the Bible was taboo for you.
And quoting incredulous people was wrong.
I do think that those that came to the same conclusion as you, were wrong to do so. It is also interesting how many of them clearly feel that the conclusion is important to their religious beliefs.
I don't think they all have strong "religious beliefs". I think a number of them are simply honest that the evidence could conceivably lead to areas more appropriate to theistic beliefs. I think it is a matter of their candor. Like the whole book "God and the Astronomers" by Robert Jastrow an admitted agnostic.
To the surprise of some intelligent people, JUST MAYBE trashing a belief in a creating intelligence was premature.
I regard some of them as being honest about their reaction.
You seem to want to imply that all such reactions going against the centuries assumed Copernican Principle, that we really are no special creatures, are incredulous.
But why did you produce more quotes? Do you think I am not aware of how many people have commented on it? Do you think quoting more people supports your case? Do you think drowning me out with quotes makes you 'win'?
Because I reject your bias wholesale and unequivocally that all such observations are irrelevant.
If you feel "drowned" maybe its because you have no good reply for them.
I would seriously like to know what you were thinking when you dug up those quotes and posted them here - especially considering my comments on that practice previously in this thread.
Apparently your comment had no effect. Don't be shocked.
A lot of your comments simply are not as weighty as you imagine they should be.
I could quote viewpoints contrary to a surprise at the Fine Tuning or Anthropic Principle. But I figure you'll do that if you wish. I would not dismiss them on some general principle, but consider them on a case by case basis.
Quoting people who agree with a point I want to make is taboo only in your own set of discussion rules.