1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
Telescopes 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
They can detect possible intelligent signals sent out by technologies either attempting to let other civilizations know they are there or for other reasons.
I think SETI employs a perfectly reasonable method of higher life detection. And that is what I asked about - "higher life" as in possible extraterrestrial civilizations.
- and certainly nothing that can conclusively rule out intelligent life for any star system other than our own.
There maybe someone out there.
Searching for intelligent radio signals is one method.
Do you agree ?
And don't forget that for much of this discussion you said 'life' not 'intelligent life'.
In the question I asked you I specified higher life as the kind to produce civilization.
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.
Using radio telescopes to try to capture intelligent signals from outer space, what kind of signal would you assume just might indicate is coming from an intelligent source ?
How about we received the something indicating say the first 5000 prime numbers ?
3 edits
Yet another hated quotation:
" Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning. The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10 [to the] 120,which is:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 "
Now let me quote the other naysayers expressing no unusual commotion on Fine Tuning:
What do atheists think about this level of design? Here is a quote from a recent article:
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism. "Common wisdom" is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhere did I 'flip-flop'? Oh, I see, you just couldn't address the content of my post, so you went with attacking the poster.
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.
Originally posted by sonshipYes, thats what I said. With telescopes.
They can detect possible intelligent signals sent out by technologies either attempting to let other civilizations know they are there or for other reasons.
There maybe someone out there.
Searching for intelligent radio signals is one method.
Do you agree ?
Yes, I agree. And have participated in Seti@home in the past.
In the question I asked you I [b]specified higher life as the kind to produce civilization. [/b]
Thats fine.
Using radio telescopes to try to capture intelligent signals from outer space, what kind of signal would you assume just might indicate is coming from an intelligent source ?
Anything we don't yet have another better explanation for is worth investigating.
How about we received the something indicating say the first 5000 prime numbers ?
That would probably be conclusive, yes, but there are obviously many other possible patterns that would indicate an intelligent source.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, thats what I said. With telescopes.
[b]There maybe someone out there.
Searching for intelligent radio signals is one method.
Do you agree ?
Yes, I agree. And have participated in Seti@home in the past.
In the question I asked you I [b]specified higher life as the kind to produce civilization. [/b]
Thats fine.
Using radi ...[text shortened]... but there are obviously many other possible patterns that would indicate an intelligent source.
That would probably be conclusive, yes, but there are obviously many other possible patterns that would indicate an intelligent source.
Of course there could be other indications.
Would you think it unique if you received the first 1,000 prime numbers ?
If that gave rise to the prospect of an intelligent source why can't Fine Tuning raise the prospect of an intelligent source ?
Now if your response is anything like you have ruled out that possibility up front because God could not be (even in possibility) I'll surmise that you simply don't like where the evidence might lead in the matter of the Fine Tuning.
And I don't know why you seem surprised that on the Spirituality Forum I contribute quotations and rationale that has implications for the spiritual.
Why are you here if you think nothing spiritual could or should be implied in this thread ? Are you saying that some sort of Scientism IS your spirituality ?
And put some meat on your reply please and do not simply respond saying "I didn't say that ... period."
Originally posted by sonshipAll talk about talking with alien civilizations is pretty moot anyway. The problem is the distance. For instance, it is said we could detect ourselves from just about across the galaxy, thousands of light years at least. The problem there is, suppose we do find a signal that proves to be a thousand light years away. So we hear a signal, send a response, a thousand years later they get it, then send a response back, we are talking 2000 years before the very first signal/response happens. So we send signal # 2 back and now it is 4000 years into the future before response # 2 comes back.That would probably be conclusive, yes, but there are obviously many other possible patterns that would indicate an intelligent source.
Of course there could be other indications.
Would you think it unique if you received the first 1,000 prime numbers ?
If that gave rise to the prospect of an intelligent source why can't Fine Tuni ...[text shortened]... some meat on your reply please and do not simply respond saying "I didn't say that ... period."
Now you all know how long civilizations last on Earth, maybe a thou at most. So in that case, our whole civilization would have gone to dust before any response would have taken place and there would be therefore, no communications.
The chances of finding a civilization close enough say, 40 ly away, so a mere 80 years goes by between signal and response, is miniscule. We have already done significant searches of just about every source within a couple hundred light years with no response.
Another problem is also related to the length of time a civilization lasts.
If we send out signals that can be received by someone out there, suppose they are 10,000 light years away.
In that case, so far, we have a spherically spreading footprint of our civilization and right now that covers a sphere about 200 light years across.
So we know our civilization won't last more than say, 1000 years.
So a thousand years from now, for whatever reason, we stop using lasers, RF and so forth. That means we now have a moving wavefront of detectable signal, of course getting weaker by the year, but it is a wave that is 1000 years wide. So suppose the civilization that could hear us had not developed the technology when we did, but 3000 years later. They would never have heard our signal because we would have been like two ships passing in the night, our signal come and gone before anyone hears.
That is problem # 2.
Originally posted by sonshipBecause the constants of the universe are not the first 1,000 prime numbers.
If that gave rise to the prospect of an intelligent source why can't Fine Tuning raise the prospect of an intelligent source ?
Now if your response is anything like you have ruled out that possibility up front because God could not be (even in possibility) I'll surmise that you simply don't like where the evidence might lead in the matter of the Fine Tuning.
No, that is not my response as you well know. I have not, anywhere in this thread even suggested that as an argument.
And I don't know why you seem surprised that on the Spirituality Forum I contribute quotations and rationale that has implications for the spiritual.
Why are you here if you think nothing spiritual could or should be implied in this thread ? Are you saying that some sort of Scientism IS your spirituality ?
Did you read my post? You don't seem to have understood what I said.
And put some meat on your reply please and do not simply respond saying "I didn't say that ... period."
I'll try, but its kind of difficult when your response doesn't address what I said, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Are you saying that because its the spirituality forum you feel the need to provide large quantities of spiritual quotes regardless of their relevance?
We already both know that there are plenty of people that think the universe was fine tuned by God. Listing 1000 of them including quotes of them saying so, simply is not useful to the discussion. It serves no purpose other than to discourage people from reading your posts. So why do you do it?
Originally posted by sonhouseSatan and his demons are the only aliens we need to worry about and we don't want any contact with them anyway.
All talk about talking with alien civilizations is pretty moot anyway. The problem is the distance. For instance, it is said we could detect ourselves from just about across the galaxy, thousands of light years at least. The problem there is, suppose we do find a signal that proves to be a thousand light years away. So we hear a signal, send a response, a t ...[text shortened]... ips passing in the night, our signal come and gone before anyone hears.
That is problem # 2.
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatI believe that God has both told us the truth, and not deceived us in communicating to us through His word "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
How did the creator come to be, sonship?
There are two passages I would refer to:
1.) Revelation 4:11 - "You are worthy our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created."
"All things" were created by God "because of [His] will". The willof God "preceeded" the creation of all things. First God had a will, a plan, a desire and purpose. Then based upon His plan and purpose He "created all things".
God became the creator because God had an eternal purpose. Creation of the universe and giving being to all things was because of God's will, God's plan.
The second passage shows me that "before" the foundation of the world God had a will.
2.) Ephesians 1:3a, -5 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies in Christ.
Even as He chose us in Him "before the foundation of the world" to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us unto sonship through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will."
The phrase "before the foundation of the world" I take to mean before the creation of the universe. In other words "prior" to the creation of the universe God had a desire for sons with His own life and nature - predestinated to "sonship" .
Based then upon that desire and plan God then laid the foundation of the world, ie. created the universe.
First the "good pleasure of His will" was in His heart. Then on the basis of that will God then laid "the foundation of the world" and created all things.
That would explain why the constants and values governing the Big Bang were exquisitely calibrated for a "life permitting" cosmos rather than a much "life prohibiting" cosmos.
My opinion is that He wanted man to have this sense of specialty. And since He is so transcendent over time, He arranged and knew that given the development of our ability to perceive the nature of creation, we would see how peculiarly life permitting is the universe apparently or inconspicuously for our benefit.
This scientific indication (or HINT if you will) in addition to His word is left for us.
Originally posted by sonhouse
All talk about talking with alien civilizations is pretty moot anyway. The problem is the distance. For instance, it is said we could detect ourselves from just about across the galaxy, thousands of light years at least. The problem there is, suppose we do find a signal that proves to be a thousand light years away.
There are problems plenty. But I think it is a decent methodology.
So we hear a signal, send a response, a thousand years later they get it, then send a response back, we are talking 2000 years before the very first signal/response happens. So we send signal # 2 back and now it is 4000 years into the future before response # 2 comes back.
It is surely not conducive for Internet Chat. However I think they would be happy just to find out a signal was out there. Even if it was from a civilization perhaps long gone.
Mankind wants to know if they are alone in the universe.
I read years ago that by the fastest rocket power we have in existence it would take over 100,000 years to reach even the nearest star four light years away. So contact or communication right now would be unlikely.
Now you all know how long civilizations last on Earth, maybe a thou at most. So in that case, our whole civilization would have gone to dust before any response would have taken place and there would be therefore, no communications.
The implication of all the ages is that we should use time wisely.
As a Christian I don't believe we were created mainly for time. We are passing through on a kind of bridge between eternity past and eternity future. We are on a bridge of time. In the purpose of God we are headed for eternity.
We are on this bridge in between two great eternities. The bridge is sturdy but seemingly not infinitely so. Eventually we see that it will wear out. Entropy will rise and the bridge of time and the cosmos will wear down and expand into nothingness.
We can see that temporariness is built into this finely tuned bridge. And we see that there are some decisions to be made regarding the eternal Creator.
I do not know what else is out there. The Father knows.
The Bible tells me that God does keep some secrets to Himself.
Maybe we are not ready to know some things:
Moses told the Hebrews commencing their entering into Canaan:
"The things hidden belong to Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed, to us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deut. 29:29)
The chances of finding a civilization close enough say, 40 ly away, so a mere 80 years goes by between signal and response, is miniscule. We have already done significant searches of just about every source within a couple hundred light years with no response.
I understand. As I said, I think they would be happy just to hear a signal.
Aside from this, there is not really any good reason to hope we would get along with other beings. Our track record for treating our own kind who are a little different from us, is not that good.
Another problem is also related to the length of time a civilization lasts.
If we send out signals that can be received by someone out there, suppose they are 10,000 light years away.
In that case, so far, we have a spherically spreading footprint of our civilization and right now that covers a sphere about 200 light years across.
So we know our civilization won't last more than say, 1000 years.
I can see you have thought about the practical limitations.
So a thousand years from now, for whatever reason, we stop using lasers, RF and so forth. That means we now have a moving wavefront of detectable signal, of course getting weaker by the year, but it is a wave that is 1000 years wide. So suppose the civilization that could hear us had not developed the technology when we did, but 3000 years later. They would never have heard our signal because we would have been like two ships passing in the night, our signal come and gone before anyone hears.
That is problem # 2.
8 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
Because the constants of the universe are [b]not the first 1,000 prime numbers.
Now if your response is anything like you have ruled out that possibility up front because God could not be (even in possibility) I'll surmise that you simply don't like where the evidence might lead in the matter of the Fine Tuning.
No, that is not my response ...[text shortened]... ficult when your response doesn't address what I said, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense either.
Because the constants of the universe are not the first 1,000 prime numbers.
But an indication of intelligent munipulation is strongly evidenced in both.
And a lottery example better suited to express the Fine Tuning matter would be a lottery of a million balls in a vat. ONE of them is green and the rest of them are black.
You pull the lever one time and the green ball comes down the shoot. It was more probably that one of the black balls come down.
Life prohibiting universes are thought by many to be more probable that life permitting ones. That is why the surprise is expressed by some.
The combination of constants and values all could have received separately or all together many other values in the creation event. The Fine Tuning of them to be life permitting corresponds to the selection of the green ball from the million or so black balls on a pull of the lever.
While it may be true that any of the balls is equally improbable that is not the issue. The issues is the GREEN ball coming down in a pull is the amazing thing. And the life permitting characteristics of our universe when variation in those constants could have more probably yielded is the surprise.
I found out that "Anthropic Principle's" definition seems to depend upon who is being asked. There are interesting variations of what it is suppose to mean depending on who you are asking.
sonship:
Now if your response is anything like you have ruled out that possibility up front because God could not be (even in possibility) I'll surmise that you simply don't like where the evidence might lead in the matter of the Fine Tuning.
No, that is not my response as you well know. I have not, anywhere in this thread even suggested that as an argument.
I don't "well know it". But I'll take your word for it for now.
If I did "well know it" I would not have suspected that might be your response.
It seems to be the response of some atheists.
And I don't know why you seem surprised that on the Spirituality Forum I contribute quotations and rationale that has implications for the spiritual.
I think maybe an Atheistic Naturalistic world view you consider as your spirituality. You have that right.
But I don't see you propose it. I see you ever standing along the side ready to oppose Theism.
sonship:
Why are you here if you think nothing spiritual could or should be implied in this thread ? Are you saying that some sort of Scientism IS your spirituality ?
Did you read my post? You don't seem to have understood what I said.
And put some meat on your reply please and do not simply respond saying "I didn't say that ... period."
I'll try, but its kind of difficult when your response doesn't address what I said, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Are you saying that because its the spirituality forum you feel the need to provide large quantities of spiritual quotes regardless of their relevance?
Yep. And I will continue with large quantities of spiritual quotes because you see, I think God is trying to reach us by SPEAKING and entering into history and DOING certain things.
When I see them as relevant to any thread I participate in here, I will include them. Your contempt for the Bible means nothing to me.
I think when we reach out for God we do not simply reach out into the dark with not response. I believe we reach out and are MET with another divine hand eagerly reaching TOWARD us.
I think there is such a thing as being in the dark so long one is afraid of the light. I think you think if you reach out you only reach out into the darkness so there is no use to reach out.
At any rate, you will see the Bible quoted in my writing space.
It feeds something deep in my being and in the being of others.
Some of us are hungry not only for knowledge but to fellowship with God.
If you understand all scientific mysteries and still have no fellowship with God that is sad.
We already both know that there are plenty of people that think the universe was fine tuned by God. Listing 1000 of them including quotes of them saying so, simply is not useful to the discussion. It serves no purpose other than to discourage people from reading your posts. So why do you do it?
Speak for yourself if you're discouraged.
I think. I study. I research. I also pray. And I also quote the book of life - the revelation of the Bible. I just do here regardless of how much you think it is not relevant to refer to God's word.
Here's a quote not from the Bible though which is well put:
"But the following illustration from John Barrow clarifies the sense in which a life-permitting universe is improbable. Take a sheet of paper and place upon it a red dot. That dot represents our universe. Now alter slightly one or more of the finely tuned constants and physical quantities which have been the focus of our attention. As a result we have a description of another universe, which we may represent as a new dot in the proximity of the first. If that new set of constants and quantities describes a life-permitting universe, make it a red dot; if it describes a universe which is life-prohibiting, make it a blue dot. Now repeat the procedure arbitrarily many times until the sheet is filled with dots. What one winds up with is a sea of blue with only a few pin-points of red. That is the sense in which it is overwhelming improbable that the universe should be life-permitting. There are simply a vastly greater proportion of more life-prohibiting universes in our local area of possible universes than there are life-permitting universes."
( Reasonable Faith, 3rd Edition, William L. Craig. Crossway, pg 164 )
Are you saying that because its the spirituality forum you feel the need to provide large quantities of spiritual quotes regardless of their relevance?
My experience as a young man searching for the truth was that I argued and argued with some Christian friends very much. Today I cannot remember those arguments. I remember a moment when my friend quoted the Gospel of John. And for a moment something shined into my darkened heart. But I don't remember any of the contents of those long arguments I had.
He said at one moment "... I don't know how many times I have to tell you. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is the living word of God."
I still didn't agree with his faith or even understand what he said. But one day I came to remember and know that Jesus Christ is the living word of God.
So I try to lead some people along the same path that I came.
This will annoy you.
NOTE:
IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE READING THIS who wishes to know what was the relevance of some Bible quotation to anything in this thread I discussed, let me know and I will try to clarify WHAT was the relevance of the quotation.
Show me the post and show me the quotation.
Twhitehead is excused as I assume he wouldn't care.
Originally posted by sonshipNo, it isn't, which is what this whole thread has been about. Merely stating that it is, won't make it true.
But an indication of intelligent munipulation is strongly evidenced in both.
And a lottery example better suited to express the Fine Tuning matter would be a lottery of a million balls in a vat. ONE of them is green and the rest of them are black.
Why would that be better? What make you think your ball is green? What makes you think all other balls are black?
Life prohibiting universes are thought by many to be more probable that life permitting ones. That is why the surprise is expressed by some.
That depends as I have said, on how you define 'life' and why. You claimed that you defined it exactly as we see life today. But now your lottery example changes to one in which there are a million different colours of ball, one of which is the colour you picked, and you think it is special merely because you picked it. Your error is in thinking all the other balls are black.
I found out that "Anthropic Principle's" definition seems to depend upon who is being asked.
Wikipedia is right there on the internet, no need to be asking your friends.
Do you have any authoritative sources that disagree with Wikipedia?
Your contempt for the Bible means nothing to me.
It wasn't the Bible you were quoting. It was a whole range of people whose comments were frankly irrelevant. They were all saying exactly the same thing that you say and have quoted people saying before. You seemed to think that quoting other people that agree with you bolsters your case. It doesn't. And I have told you that before.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipAll of that said, we will continue to look and listen for signs of intelligence, if we ever find such it will for sure answer the question "are we alone in the universe'.All talk about talking with alien civilizations is pretty moot anyway. The problem is the distance. For instance, it is said we could detect ourselves from just about across the galaxy, thousands of light years at least. The problem there is, suppose we do find a signal that proves to be a thousand light years away.
There are problems plen ...[text shortened]... hips passing in the night, our signal come and gone before anyone hears.
That is problem # 2.
One other problem with finding such signals, suppose the practical chances of two advanced technological civilizations are zero for any one given galaxy.
It might be that Earth is so special that you only get one like it per galaxy. THAT would suck big time but it would also explain why we hear nothing, even with receivers so sensitive it could pick US up anywhere in the galaxy that our signal could travel.
My gut feeling is the Earth is NOT that special, that the conditions that happened here, nice heavy iron core planet with a fat magnetic field, a big moon to stabilize Earth's tilt (without the moon Earth could wobble as far as the north pole aiming right at the sun) and in the goldilocks zone where liquid water can exist and an atmosphere that did not start out with much oxygen but when life took hold, life generated most of the oxygen we have today.
One can see why creationists would consider it unlikely to have come about by chance but it is the firm belief of the scientific community that chance was ALL that happened. For instance, there have been at least 5 MAJOR extinctions where Earth was whacked by giant asteroids, thought to have come about from some disturbance in the outer solar system, something BIG disturbing the orbits of Neptune and Uranus.
Enough to stir things up that caused literally thousands of asteroids to shift orbits and a lot of them headed right to the inner system to whack the moon, Mars and Earth with disastrous consequences for life on Earth. One such the Permian extinction, killed 90% of all marine life and just about as much land life, they think due to volcano activity on a scale never seen before or since.
Volcano's that inundated entire countries like Siberia or Canada (what we think of as those names now anyway). All of these things were the result of chance occurrences of forces in the solar system and maybe beyond.
Of course creationists can put forth the argument 'godidit', directing disaster after disaster all designed to end up with our style of present life but that strains credulity way past the breaking point.
Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Originally posted by sonhouseI would prefer that you stick it up your rear end.
All of that said, we will continue to look and listen for signs of intelligence, if we ever find such it will for sure answer the question "are we alone in the universe'.
One other problem with finding such signals, suppose the practical chances of two advanced technological civilizations are zero for any one given galaxy.
It might be that Earth is ...[text shortened]... strains credulity way past the breaking point.
Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.