- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionThe probability of extra terrestrial life in an infinite universe is 1 (i.e. 100% ). the probability of ET in the visible universe, 1 (or so close to one as to be almost indistinguishable from it), probability of life in the galaxy, 1 (or so close to one as to be indistinguishable from it). you can have all sorts of arguments about whether there is intelligent ET life, or how common ET life is, but pretty much to as many digits you want to calculate it to the probability of Et existing is 0.999999999999999999999999..... or in other words 1. thus the existence of ET is not very likely, it is certain.
It would seem likely?
That's pure speculation scotty my boy and you know it ...
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeJust out of unadulterated interest: could you divulge the math (and the amusing a priori assumptions) involved in attaining this overwhelming evidence for your Extra-Terrestrial, secret-handshake-club-buddies?
The probability of extra terrestrial life in an infinite universe is 1 (i.e. 100% ). the probability of ET in the visible universe, 1 (or so close to one as to be almost indistinguishable from it), probability of life in the galaxy, 1 (or so close to one as to be indistinguishable from it). you can have all sorts of arguments about whether there is intel ...[text shortened]... 9999999999..... or in other words 1. thus the existence of ET is not very likely, it is certain.
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by scottishinnz...the fact that we haven't heard from any other civilisations doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It means, just for your education - I suggest you get quite a bit more - that the fact that we haven't heard from any other civilisations doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It’s such a pity that your keen, open mind slams shut like a bear-trap whenever the transcendental is invoked.
Perhaps you could use your above line of reasoning next time somebody challenges your religious prejudices.
11 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseLife on other planets would be a natural thing, not a supernatural one.
[b]...the fact that we haven't heard from any other civilisations doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It’s such a pity that your keen, open mind slams shut like a bear-trap whenever the transcendental is invoked.
Perhaps you could use your above line of reasoning next time somebody challenges your religious prejudices.[/b]
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by StarrmanWe've been over this before: absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence -- the good ole argument from ignorance.
Life on other planets would be a natural thing, not a supernatural one.
If you want to take the skeptical approach where you deem a proposition false until proven true, that is entirely up to you; but I would expect a certain amount of consistency in your epistemology -- you can't then go about believing in ET until (s)he/it is proven to exist.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479.
Just out of unadulterated interest: could you divulge the math (and the amusing a priori assumptions) involved in attaining this overwhelming evidence for your Extra-Terrestrial, secret-handshake-club-buddies?
But the basic argument is that there are extra solar planets, (moons, asteroids.... potential habitats) predicted theoretically and now being detected. Life emerged here on Earth witch proves that there is a possibility of life emerging on a planet, (this possibility gets larger and larger as we discover more and more complex organic molecules floating round in space let alone in an atmosphere and on a planet where much more complex chemistry can take place) and even if you allow only a tiny percentage of stars to be the right type to allow life, and only a tiny percentage of those have planets, and only a tiny percentage of those are the right type of planet in the right orbital band, and of those only a tiny proportion can develope life, when you actually factor in the number of stars out there you still land up with the probability of ET life on at least one other planet being indistinguishable from 1. And that is talking pretty much worst case as planets are starting to look very common, and life is being discovered in more and more extreme environments meaning that the restrictions on where you might find it get reduced, and the building blocks of life are as I say being detected just floating around in gas clouds in space, betting against there being ET is looking like a very, very poor bet.
The reason that arguing, there is no evidence for god thus I wont believe in it until there is evidence, is different from say 'believing' that there is extraterrestrial life is that our very successful scientific theories say that life should exist on other planets, the point about science is that you can develop theories which explain and fit all the available evidence and then use them to predict the out come or existence of new objects, experiments or phenomena. There is no, and can be no, scientific theory which predicts the existence of god. ET is however a different matter, as ET is not what we might term here, the supernatural.
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by royaltystatementLOL.
Even with all the things that humans develop, they are only developed because of the natural instinct of man. Just like the natural instinct of animals are to kill and eat each other in cold blood. Humans away from God are in some aspects exactly the same as those animals.
I was a cannibal 'til I met Jesus!
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by FelixMcWow, where did you get all that info from, did you read it somewhere,
Religion is organised.
Religion is responsible for the majority of wars, and I'm guessing the biggest cause of murder since time began.
Religion is based on Chinese whispers (you try translating "the true meaning across language, dialect, slang etc and keeping that "perfect message".
Religion keeps the majority of believers out of trouble, which is it' ...[text shortened]... force your belief on others. You don't know. They don't know. They only say they do.
or make it up yourself?
Kelly
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479. Blah, blah, blah.
The full argument is fairly complex, for an introductory discussion read 'probability one' by Amir Aczel; ISBN: 0349112479.
But the basic argument is that there are extra solar planets, (moons, asteroids.... potential habitats) predicted theoretically and now being detected. Life emerged here on Earth witch proves that there is a possibility of life eme ...[text shortened]... d. ET is however a different matter, as ET is not what we might term here, the supernatural.
Uhm... okay... Hardly the rigorous "proof" I was expecting from one who seems to demand the same for the supernatural. I rest my case.
…the point about science is that you can develop theories which explain and fit all the available evidence and then use them to predict the out come or existence of new objects, experiments or phenomena.
Irrespective of which fashionable "theory" may hold sway over public opinion, there is still an objective reality (assumed by science) to which these theories have to conform to. My point: it is not the theory, but the objective reality that holds the ultimate Truth.
There is no, and can be no, scientific theory which predicts the existence of god.
You have an excellent grasp of the obvious. Scientific theories (I assume you mean "natural" scientific theories) by definition deal with natural phenomenon. How could they possibly predict or explain the Supernatural?
ET is however a different matter, as ET is not what we might term here, the supernatural.
Sooooo.... as the one falls within your arbitrarily assigned constraints of reality - it exists, while the other falls outside your arbitrary reality - it doesn't exist. I detect a painful circularity in reasoning: you constrain your possible solutions to fall within a certain range and then seem somehow pleasantly surprised when they do.
11 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Halitose...absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence -- the good ole argument from ignorance.
We've been over this before: absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence -- the good ole argument from ignorance.
If you want to take the skeptical approach where you deem a proposition false until proven true, that is entirely up to you; but I would expect a certain amount of consistency in your epistemology -- you can't then go about believing in ET until (s)he/it is proven to exist.
First off, Hal, I think you are implying in your posts a distinction between what might be called a “reasonable skeptic” and a “dogmatic skeptic.” I accuse no one here; I do think it’s a valid distinction in the usage of the word “skeptic” (which I indicate, somewhat fancifully, below).
I’m not sure what standard of proof you might mean in this quote: certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, argument to the best explanation, etc. So I’m going to re-word this statement in the way that I have heard it expressed (lowering the bar, perhaps):
“Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence...”
Well, sometimes it does. Suppose I ask you if you have an egg in your refrigerator. You say, “No.” I say, “How do you know? Have you looked?” You say, “No, I don’t have to look, I just know there is no egg in my refrigerator.”
Now, at this point, I think I might have a reasonable skepticism about your dogmatic skepticism about the presence of an egg in your refrigerator. So, I continue—
Ollie (me): “Why are you so sure there’s no egg there?”
Stan (you): “I see no evidence of an egg.”
Ollie: “How can you say that? We’re sitting in the den, and you admit that you haven’t looked. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you know.”
Stan: “Okay, I’ll go look.” (Looks and returns.) “Nope, no egg.”
Now, of course, absence of evidence does start to look a bit like evidence of absence. What other evidence could there be for “no egg in the refrigerator”? Ollie, however, is still not satisfied.
Ollie: “I don’t think you really looked, Stanley. Let’s both go and look again.”
Stan: “Oh, all right.” (They go and search all through the refrigerator, taking everything out and putting it back. Stan watches Ollie real close, in case Ollie has an egg up his sleeve... 🙂 ).
How many times and how carefully by how many witnesses does the refrigerator have to be searched before “absence of evidence” attains the sufficiency required for a conclusion that there really is no egg—i.e., before absence of evidence does constitute evidence of absence?
Now, let’s say I ask: “Stan, do you think there might be an invisible, immaterial cat living in your refrigerator?” How could you possibly “prove” (at any level) that there is or there isn’t? How could you possibly produce any evidence? Does absence of evidence carry any weight? In this case, does absence of evidence have any meaning? What about general absence of evidence for any such thing as an invisible, immaterial cat? Have we moved beyond the physical level—and beyond the reach of empiricism at all?—to a metaphysical level, where come into play such things as the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the argument from design...?
_____________________________________
I really think the issue between the supernaturalist and the non-supernaturalist comes down to: What kind of evidence (and absence of evidence) is admissible? How should various claims of evidence (and absence thereof) be weighted?* What kind, and how much, evidence is needed to meet what standards of proof or conclusiveness? And on these questions, thus far at least, there seems to be a great divide.
* I think this was Hume’s point when he asked how many miracles would need to be observed before they carried sufficient weight to counter the evidence from natural “laws” in the other scale.
________________________________
Now I’m off to read bit and take a nap...
11 Aug 06
Originally posted by HalitoseAnd I disagreed that you presented it correctly that time as well.
We've been over this before: absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence -- the good ole argument from ignorance.
If you want to take the skeptical approach where you deem a proposition false until proven true, that is entirely up to you; but I would expect a certain amount of consistency in your epistemology -- you can't then go about believing in ET until (s)he/it is proven to exist.
There is no proof for the supernatural, if you claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, then you open yourself up to being unable to hold anything with sureity and also to the possibility of several supernatural entities, the colour skyscraper, behoobers, my third foot etc. Such a world would be impossible to live in. You have the skeptical approach wrong, I am refuting the skeptical approach completely in preference for a common sense and empirically justified existence.
ET is potentially a natural phenomenon, as such it is far more likely to exist than a supernatural one. The two arguements are not homogenous.