|
Hey guys, going to try something new. Please play the devils advocate in this situation, absolutely tear apart my suggestions, arguments and proofs! I want to try and improve upon my construct to make it much more robust, but feel welcome to further comment and add improvements.
I will not be disputing religion, or a particular aspect of a religion, but the foundation of religion, and its building of an ideaology encompassing a monotheistic diety(God, Allah, Brahman, Elohim, Jesus Christ, Waheguru, etc) of whom is owed worship; and put forward for consideration that if there was a diety, why would you matter to it?
Irrespective of if you believe there is a god or if there isnt one, you acknowledge one thing - that there was a beginning. That there was a point in time where all energy, all matter in the universe was in one point. This fact is widely considered a scientific constant, its not for debate(all contentions to date have been proven a fallacy through LOTD, Hubble's Law or Theory of Relativity, or lack of a better alternative) and for the remaining of this article remains constant. Irrespective of what you think happened before the bing bang, time not existing prior to it, the big crunch theory, or a set of multiple universes - we are unable to find evidence for a god. This does not suggest a god does exist or a god does not exist, it simply means we are unable to deduce if there is a god in existance external to our universe(s).
Hypothetically, let's assume there is a god. He created the universe, he didnt create any of the stars or the elements within them, he simply created the energy for the big bang. We do not dispute the big bang. As previously mentioned, irrespective of what you believe happened before, or how the big bang came about - it happened. 13.7 billion years ago the big bang occured. There are currently an estimated 200 billion known galaxies, with our own Milky Way(a single galaxy) alone holding more than an estimated 400 billion individual stars, each potentially forming their own solar systems with planets orbiting them,(and moons orbiting the planets) all capable of harbouring life.
Comprehending these numbers alone is near-impossible, considering that civilized humanity has existed roughly 6,000 years, and earliest recorded belief in dieties are that of ancient egypt. On a scale of the universe's life, if we equate the 6,000 years to the number 1, and each subsequent number is a further 6,000 years, to reach the beginning of the universe would require a further 2,228,332 sets of 6,000 years. When we consider how close humanity has been to self-extermination(1945, 1962) it becomes evident of how quickly a civilized society may be born - and then die through its own actions.
That billions of intelligent societies throughout the universe could potentially exist or have existed, and in drawing that conclusion the question I suggest is, why are we so special? Why does a diety, after creating enough energy to create the entire universe feel the need to listen to your problems? Why would you matter to it?
"How can you suggest alien life exists without any proof?" The ability to reasonably deduce alien life exists without any tangible evidence for it, will be proposed in a borrowed analogy.
Imagine you're a detective trying to determine who the murderer of a body found at a crime scene is. First you find that you have no evidence, just motive. Is that enough to convict? What if you find a hair that belongs to someone. Is that enough? What if you find finger prints and a semen sample? What if you have a motive, hair, finger prints, DNA, and no allabi? Would it be safe to convict him? The majority of criminal courts, would have evidence beyond doubt to convict the accused.
What if there was a hidden camera and it saw him in the house 10 minutes before the murder took place? What if we saw him with a gun and an emotionally negative expression pointing it toward the murdered? At some point, the evidence becomes too strong, and while someone can say "no one saw him actually pull the trigger", you may reasonably arrive at a conclusion.
How the analogy relates; Humans, on a universal scale and atomic level are not special. The human body, at an atomic level is made up of Hydrogen(63%), Oxygen(25.6%), Carbon(9.5%), Nitrogen(1.3%) and Other(.6%) The point that our body's four most common elements directly correlate with the solar systems composition of elements(exclusive of helium): Hydrogen(90.9%), Hellium(8.8%), Oxygen(0.048%), Carbon(0.033%) and Nitrogen(0.010%) suggests that the ingredients to create life as we know it are abundant, if we were made from, say, 92% Tungsten and 7% Iodine, then the evidence becomes redundant.
The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to simulate the Earth's environment within a sealed container. Combined inside was water, methane, ammonia, hyrogen (similar to conditions present in the early Earth, which is defined as Earth's first billion years) and Electrical spark, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. They let the spark operate for a week and then examined the result. The experiment showed chemical reactions developing more than 20 different amino acids, multiple fatty acids and urea. This displays that the building blocks for life, on a molecular level can be formed through using different combinations of initial chemicals and energy sources.
How does this prove that life exists exclusive of Earth? It gives direct evidence that the atomic ingredients for life are plentiful through out our solar system, and when charged in an atmosphere similar to that of Earth, can spawn the foundation of life. That considering the sheer size of the universe, the possibility and probability for external life considering the Drake equation, it becomes more than reasonable to deduce, without tangible evidence, that alien life exists.
With the rational acknowledgment for existance of alien life, we establish the point that the universe was not built for creatures of Earth only. The true number of alien life forms we share this universe with will remain impossible to answer, but one thing we can agree on, its reasonable to suggest there is a lot of them!
So now I ask again, with this information accepted, why do you, your problems and your prayers matter to god?(the ability for the god to actually intervene is another completely different topic)
 
|
You say that the probable statistical evidence of there being other intelligent life out there is overwhelming. Isn't the probable statistic of the there being intelligent life here on earth kind of like the same. Out of all the combinations of species that evolution has brought forth, homo sapiens are the only ones capable of say.. philosophy (or make atom bombs if that is a more remarkable trait in your eyes), and it's safe to assume there has never been another species capable of such things in our solar system, ever.
So instead of assuming that there are other success stories like ours and build your statistics on it, maybe one should ponder about why we are so unique in our own close proximity of space. And then maybe wonder why the moon blocks out the sun perfectly during a solar eclipse. It's stuff like that which makes you wonder about how special you are and that maybe this whole thing is there just for you after all. So your prayers might as well be worth something.
I don't believe in God btw
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the god question is exhausted except as a case study of contingency and how much human specific representation guides our framing of the world.
|
The Drake Equation is bullshit. We have no idea what the probability is of life developing on a capable planet is. So, no, we cannot deduce that there is extraterrestrial life.
Even accepting that, your argument about God doesn't really make sense. Saying that God cares personally about all 400 billion sentient beings in the universe isn't really any more outrageous of a claim than saying that God cares personally about all 6 billion people on the Earth.
I think that "Why would God help football players make successful passes while letting children starve to death in Africa?" is a more apt way to question why we comfortable Westerners would think that God cares about our petty problems...
|
I don't think framing the question of God in terms of mortal life is ever going to work. In my experience, theists are just going to come up with some variation of His ineffability and the current world is just a test. If you have faith in God, then you have faith in God; that's how gods and faith work.
|
On August 10 2011 23:15 Redmark wrote:
I don't think framing the question of God in terms of mortal life is ever going to work. In my experience, theists are just going to come up with some variation of His ineffability and the current world is just a test. If you have faith in God, then you have faith in God; that's how gods and faith work.
Exactly this. Using science or statistics to argue against the existence of God is pointless in the face of blind faith, and trying will net you no successes. They'll just say, "If God is omnipotent, then the vastness of the universe is no more incomprehensible to him than is our bedroom to us. With such power, he is certainly capable of caring about human beings specifically." No amount of logic or reason will sway the true believers - it's not going to happen.
Trying can do more harm than good, anyway; it might make the more hardcore believers even more averse to science (how dare it openly question the infallible God?), and make them more likely in the future to voice their support in favour of people who are trying to discredit evolution or scientific theory.
In a similar vein, I'd also like to mention that most people are not able to properly challenge and openly debate proponents of intelligent design. If you are reading this and you find yourself thinking, "I could; I'm a smart guy, I know about these things", then you are wrong and I implore you not to try.
If you're interested in science and critical thinking, head over to The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. It's a wonderful weekly science podcast hosted by some highly proficient speakers and skeptics. Most of their first year featured the topic of Intelligent Design very frequently (the whole Kansas school board debacle was in full swing at the time), so you can get some good insights into the whole thing there.
They're also much better than I am at explaining why most people - even intelligent individuals capable of critical thinking - should avoid openly debating ID with a skilled ID proponent. Most people simply don't have the tools necessary to dismantle their arguments. You and I would lose this debate, and lose horribly, because bad science portrayed in a good light always wins over good science twisted beyond meaning. Being right means nothing if you can't prove it.
There. There is my one obligatory post in a TL religion thread.
|
This sounds a lot like Carl Sagan's argument. Have you ever watched his old show or seen clips from it because he often talks about earth being an insignificant blue speck, just like you do. Also, never mention the drake equation. http://xkcd.com/384/
That comic really comes to mind when you mention it...
|
On August 11 2011 00:31 redoxx wrote:This sounds a lot like Carl Sagan's argument. Have you ever watched his old show or seen clips from it because he often talks about earth being an insignificant blue speck, just like you do. Also, never mention the drake equation. http://xkcd.com/384/ That comic really comes to mind when you mention it...
I do not believe Carl Sagan ever used the vastness of the universe as an argument against God, because believers would always just say that God is omnipotent and is therefore able to create it. Rather, he used it as an example of how awe-inspiring and breathtaking the world is. He was an amazing popularizer of science in general and astronomy in particular, precisely because he showed people that the universe is so full of wonder and mystery that there's no need to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too (to horribly paraphrase Douglas Adams).
Both Adams and Sagan did more to powerfully demonstrate the wonder and scope of the universe than the OP could do even if his message spread like wildfire across the internet, and they certainly didn't dissuade the believers in their time, either. Therefore, again: Don't even try.
Carl Sagan's approach was right: Get people interested in science and the universe in a positive way, and simply show how amazing and breathtaking our world truly is. Teach people critical thinking and give them resources that allows them to better understand the world, and their life will be filled with more magic than any religious teachings could hope to match. The most mindblowing experience in my life came from my finally being able to at least peripherally understand and appreciate the general theory of relativity, its meaning, and its implications.
|
On August 11 2011 00:51 Aylear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 00:31 redoxx wrote:This sounds a lot like Carl Sagan's argument. Have you ever watched his old show or seen clips from it because he often talks about earth being an insignificant blue speck, just like you do. Also, never mention the drake equation. http://xkcd.com/384/ That comic really comes to mind when you mention it... I do not believe Carl Sagan ever used the vastness of the universe as an argument against God, because believers would always just say that God is omnipotent and is therefore able to create it. Rather, he used it as an example of how awe-inspiring and breathtaking the world is. He was an amazing popularizer of science in general and astronomy in particular, precisely because he showed people that the universe is so full of wonder and mystery that there's no need to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too (to horribly paraphrase Douglas Adams). Both Adams and Sagan did more to powerfully demonstrate the wonder and scope of the universe than the OP could do even if his message spread like wildfire across the internet, and they certainly didn't dissuade the believers in their time, either. Therefore, again: Don't even try. Carl Sagan's approach was right: Get people interested in science and the universe in a positive way, and simply show how amazing and breathtaking our world truly is. Teach people critical thinking and give them resources that allows them to better understand the world, and their life will be filled with more magic than any religious teachings could hope to match. The most mindblowing experience in my life came from my finally being able to at least peripherally understand and appreciate the general theory of relativity, its meaning, and its implications.
I think that's kind of what I meant but I said it wrong and your post is wayy more elegant.
|
So what you're saying is: well there must be other civilizations both now and at any given point in history -> Why would a God care about all of them -> God doesn't exist? That's what I got and I fail to see the evidence supporting the jump between the first and second and the second and third.
|
Citing a 60 year old study (Miller-Urey) while it has not been proven incorrect- is sloppy. There have been multiple modern studies mimicking Millers seminal work and I strongly urge you to iterate those studies instead of the more rudimentary progenitor study.
Sorry it sounds awfully nitpicky but you said be ruthless!
|
Your reasoning for the probability of alien life existing is weak and nowhere near amounts to the same kind of evidence that you suggest in your analogy. The Miller-Urey experiment is super old and has some major flaws that allowed for its conclusion to seem more plausible (Oxygen being left out of the experiment, etc.)
From there, your argument falls apart since the entire thing is predicated on the fact that it is highly likely that alien life exists and that makes humans not special enough for God's attention. You have not shown that it is rational to believe that there is alien life at all.
Also, even if there is alien life, it doesn't change what Christians believe about God anyways since their belief is grounded in that humanity was chosen by God, not that God only created humans and no other life. Ultimately, He did create all the life here on Earth and not just humans, it wouldn't be that far a stretch to say that he created aliens as well.
|
By definition, monotheistic Gods tend to be omnipotent, so God should hypothetically care about everything.
|
Exactly, believers could simply answer that God cares about everything.
|
|
|
When debating about god you should just try to stay with demanding evidence for its existance. Everything else can be just answered with bullshit.
So now I ask again, with this information accepted, why do you, your problems and your prayers matter to god?(the ability for the god to actually intervene is another completely different topic)
A believer would just say that he loves everyone equally and your 10+ paragraph arguement would do absolutely nothing.
|
Isn't there still a big step between aminoacids and actual living organism, one that we haven't exactly figured out yet?
As far as I'm aware (which may not be much, as I don't really keep up with things, so correct me if I'm mistaken), we do not know the exact conditions necessary for the most primitive living organism to form, and as such we do not know exactly how similar the conditions on other planets need to be to those that happened on Earth for this to happen. To me this points out that the formation of life is a process that requires extremely strict environmental conditions (and luck, if you will).
My personal opinion is that the existence of alien life is somewhat probable but nowhere near certain, which for me is enough for us to be on the same page when it comes to the philosophical side of the argument. On the other hand, I believe that the extremely "tight" conditions that are probably required for life to form are extreme enough to kind of balance out with the size of the universe on a macroscopic level, and as such that there is a possibility that Earth is, in fact, a unique example of a planet with fully formed living organisms. Not because we're in any way special, supernatural or have some higher purpose, but purely because we "rolled the dice" well and got extremely unlikely good scores.
To sum it up - I don't think you can claim that the existence of extraterrestrial life is certain on a statistical basis until we know the exact microscopic conditions required for the most primitive living organisms to form from the organic building blocks.
|
On August 12 2011 05:33 Talin wrote:
Isn't there still a big step between aminoacids and actual living organism, one that we haven't exactly figured out yet?
As far as I'm aware (which may not be much, as I don't really keep up with things, so correct me if I'm mistaken), we do not know the exact conditions necessary for the most primitive living organism to form, and as such we do not know exactly how similar the conditions on other planets need to be to those that happened on Earth for this to happen. To me this points out that the formation of life is a process that requires extremely strict environmental conditions (and luck, if you will).
My personal opinion is that the existence of alien life is somewhat probable but nowhere near certain, which for me is enough for us to be on the same page when it comes to the philosophical side of the argument. On the other hand, I believe that the extremely "tight" conditions that are probably required for life to form are extreme enough to kind of balance out with the size of the universe on a macroscopic level, and as such that there is a possibility that Earth is, in fact, a unique example of a planet with fully formed living organisms. Not because we're in any way special, supernatural or have some higher purpose, but purely because we "rolled the dice" well and got extremely unlikely good scores.
To sum it up - I don't think you can claim that the existence of extraterrestrial life is certain on a statistical basis until we know the exact microscopic conditions required for the most primitive living organisms to form from the organic building blocks.
The reason the Drake Equation is bullshit is because there's no data to support any of its given probabilities. We can't predict how frequent life is on other planets or celestial bodies (places like Europa spring to mind) because we've only conclusively examined one planet so far, namely our own. We don't even know how life originates, meaning how a planet goes from lifeless to inhabited by single-celled organisms.
However, there is no scientific reason to believe that life, any life, is unique to our planet, or even rare, so I disagree with you on that one. It's true that we don't know how a system goes from lifeless to inhabited, but one common theory is that of systems being "seeded" by comets containing the building blocks for life. If this is indeed the case, then the possibility of finding life elsewhere in the solar system becomes that much greater.
Astronomically, the universe could be teeming with life (and, indeed, this is my current belief), yet the distances in time and space between each successful roll of the dice could be so insurmountably large that we will never encounter any.
If we find evidence that life has existed on Mars, or that life exists now or has existed in the past on Europa, then the likelihood of life being abundant in the universe would be high -- we'd be rolling two or three for three in life per water planet. It follows that the more abundant life is in general, the more likely it is that intelligent life also exists. We might know more when we look at Mars and Europa.
That said, we won't find signs of intelligent life in our lifetime, and probably not for thousands of years.
All this is quite tangential to the OP, however, although I do find it amusing that the thread went from a topic on religion and degraded into a discourse on the origins of life and statistical probability.
|
Ok so Im gonna try to argue this from two perspectives.
1:Are you familiar with what a goldilocks condition is, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything in the universe goes from complex to less complex, if thats true than how is it possible that from a single point of energy stars galaxies and even civilizations were formed ? The answer is the goldilocks condition, The goldilocks condition is essentially a set of unlikely parameters that break the rules and allow matter to become more complex. For instance life on earth formed because of a) water b) ideal proximity to the sun and c) crevices in the earth that protected organisms and allowed them to breed and develop(there probally countless other beneficial factors in play). So these incredibly unlikely ingredients come together to allow greater complexity. This is a goldilocks condition, the thing is, it becomes increasingly difficult for life to grow more complex. Humans are special not because they are alive or because of the things that make up their anatomy, Their existence is special because they are the product of successive unlikely leaps in design that by all means should not have occurred. Now that we've become sentient we can create our own goldilocks conditions to increase our own complexity(the technology leaps of the past century are a prime example of this). So while I agree that there is most likely life scattered about the universe I think that sentience is not so much an inevitability of life but more so a phenomena with an abysmally low chance of occurrence due to all the consecutive goldilocks conditions a species would have to undergo.
Its like upgrading weapons for those who played lineage. You wanna enchant your sword to level 2, theres a 50 50 chance of it being destroyed or it being twice as strong, the final level, level ten, had less than a 10 percent chance of success, now imagine you were trying to get that sword to level a thousand, keep in mind that the universe is hostile, its all about survival of the fittest and one wrong mutation is usually punished with death, the evolutionary road to intelligence is not an instant one, it has to develop both culturally and genetically, and if at any point that intelligence works against the it could be obliterated in the blink of an eye and no one would know or. So my point for this argument can be summed up like this: What makes humans special is the road that lead to their creation, the road they continue to grow and thrive upon. One more thing, the big bang is still happening as we speak, the universe continues to expand and Im sure that if a species like humanity doesn't already exist one will long before the universe begins to curl back in on itself(the last point is not a fact, there are two opinions concerning the end of the universe, one side believes that the universe will continue to grow forever, the other side to which I am belonging believes that eventually the universe will become so big its mass will out weigh the force of the big bang and the universe will begin to curve in on itself
2: Now I'm about to be a lot less sensible, the author approached the problem from a scientific and philosophical/moral standpoint and i intend to do the same. The author wonders why god would concern himself so deeply with us if there is in fact other perhaps more complex life in the universe. Well go is supposedly omniscient, he is everywhere he is everything, so if god is everything , than everything is god. If thats the case than everything matters to him, everything is a part of him, so we certainly matter from a theological standpoint, but why are we more important if everything is equal. I believe it is because we are sentient, the universe is everything, the universe cannot imagine let alone know what lies beyond its dimensions, therefore it can only look
inward. This may sound weird,surrounding but If there is an omniscient god, and everything is a piece of him, than humans(or sentient beings in general) would be the gods inward eyes because we are able to comprehend our our own existence and our surroundings both of which are apart of the universe all of which is god, the universe cannot comprehend itself but humans can, or at least sentient beings can. It is our state of mind that is essential not the fact that we are alive. For we are the universes inward eyes, the only way god can know himself without existing as a separate being entirely. Man that sounds weird.
|
Oh and I forgot to mention that if god is all benvolent then he would make the time for everything regardless of uniqueness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
