Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Elminster_Amaur]

Actually sensing the world in a different way. Literally having different information coming in than everybody else.

I see. That's almost the same thing, but instead of having different information, the mind just interprets the same information completely differently. It's virtually the same result, since you only know what your mind has interpreted of the world around you anyway.

If only .0000000000000000000000lotsmorezeros1% of the planets life had evolved beyond single celled organisims, that is still an near infinte number of planets that have life.
I heard a formula that was....And I can't remember exactly.
10 trillion capable, 10 billion beyond single celled, 10 million with multicellular capabilities, 10,000 with intelligent life.
And that was for our galaxy.
Not sure on that.

Near infinite and infinite are not the same thing.

And even if those numbers are true, you have to consider stages of development, and proximity to Terra. I mean, it's taken us, what, 6 - 10,000 years or more (depending on who you ask) to reach our level of development from the point when we were considered intelligent life. And of those 10,000 planets in our galaxy, how many of them would have survived past the development of nuclear technologies? How many made it past each stage of technological development? You must realize that for us to have survived thus far is near miraculous for being so hell-bent on killing each other.

Plus, these numbers you have mentioned would ONLY work, under 1 of 2 conditions:
1. Abiogenesis or some other theory of beginning life from nothing proves true.
or
2. The same intelligent creator that created us, created them.

I'd have to assume that if the 2nd were true, then if 10 trillion were capable, then all 10 trillion would have been seeded at some point in time, especially if that intelligent creator weren't a god, but was a physical being doing a science experiment or being megalomaniacal. Assuming a deity did it, then more than 10,000 would have evolved intelligent life at some point in time, but just enough to not overcrowd the galaxy.

If the first premise is true, then the numbers are still off, because we don't know the actual probabilities.

The point is, numbers like those are not really much of a refutation of mine, because they're both really just guesses based on what information we have.

I'm not saying that life outside earth doesn't exist. I'm saying that intelligent life would probably be the exception, not the rule at any given time. I'm not ruling out the possibility that this may be the 1 in a howevermanytrillions times that multiple intelligent beings are living simultaneously.

That's not even throwing intelligence into the mix. Intelligence and free choice tend to skew probabilities. Assuming your numbers are right, half of those with intelligent life could conceivably wipe themselves off the faces of their respective planets just as easily as the US and Russia could have done so to humanity in the cold war. Just because it's human nature to not want to destroy all of humanity doesn't mean it's in the nature of other intelligent species.

The point is, these numbers are virtually meaningless, especially if intelligent life is involved.

[TheSpacePope]

Even if it was 1 0ut of four that made it beyond nuclear tech that is still 2500 worlds in our galaxy.
Multiply that by the 1000 billion galaxies.

Plus, these numbers you have mentioned would ONLY work, under 1 of 2 conditions:
1. Abiogenesis or some other theory of beginning life from nothing proves true.
or
2. The same intelligent creator that created us, created them.

I'd have to assume that if the 2nd were true, then if 10 trillion were capable, then all 10 trillion would have been seeded at some point in time, especially if that intelligent creator weren't a god, but was a physical being doing a science experiment or being megalomaniacal. Assuming a deity did it, then more than 10,000 would have evolved intelligent life at some point in time, but just enough to not overcrowd the galaxy.

The seeded theory intrigues me, only because I am familiar with sumerian folklore that says exactly that. We were seeded by the Alba Jensiens, and they will come back to reap what they have sown.

[Sithdarth]

You must realize that for us to have survived thus far is near miraculous for being so hell-bent on killing each other.

Again this is an incorrect application of probability. You can't wait till after an event has a occurred and extract anything meaningful out of standard probability. You'd have to apply Bayes' theorem which would mean the very fact we're alive means that the probability of our survival was either 100% or very very high. A lot of people don't like Bayesian statistics because it flies in the face of causality but it makes quite a lot of correct predictions and it bears striking resemblance to quantum behavior.

[BitVyper]

The whole probability thing really falls apart when it's used to defend something that can't even be defined as having any probability whatsoever to begin with.

Probability isn't a sentient force. It doesn't look at a situation and say "oh no. There's no way THAT'S happening." It's just another concept we use to help us define the universe.

Anyway, a good analogy I once heard was to take a deck of cards, and shuffle out five at random. The odds that you would get that five in that order are pretty small, but it happened. You can take your four 9s and be pretty sure no one's got a hand that can trump you, but once the other guy shows his royal flush, it's no longer a matter of probability.

I once rolled four natural twenties in a row. I believe the odds of that are something like one in a few hundred thousand. Divine intervention, or total fluke?

Anyway, the probabilities are never as low as indicated by this kind of argument. You can't look at the end result and add the probability of every little thing that ever happened together, then say "that's how unlikely it is for us to exist as we do right now." About the very best you can do while still appearing somewhat rational, is talk about how unlikely the initial formation of life was. After that, it's just events unfolding. How they unfolded isn't important, because SOMETHING was going to happen no matter what. We could have invented ice cream instead of the steam ship.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Again this is an incorrect application of probability. You can't wait till after an event has a occurred and extract anything meaningful out of standard probability. You'd have to apply Bayes' theorem which would mean the very fact we're alive means that the probability of our survival was either 100% or very very high.

But see, that's for us. Not for any other beings out there. We don't even know if other intelligent life would have the similar tendencies, so how can we assume that the probability of their survival would be near 100%? And, once you throw intelligence into the mix, you've got no idea what could happen, because a single person can change the course of history. 1 person is all it would take to press that red button. 1 person is all it would take to inspire millions to rise from poverty into an entrepreneurial utopia. 1 person is all it takes to convince an entire country that Jews are to be blamed for their problems, that they should rise again and take what is rightfully theirs, and that they should exterminate those not of the "perfect" race. Even if a majority are born to be followers, those leaders can be of all types from any background, and eventually, anarchists show up and do something crazy like flying planes into buildings. The point is, any numbers we come up with just by looking at the sheer size of the universe don't matter much. Hell, I can conceive of situations where entire worlds commit suicide. Scientific biological immortality. Achieve that before you understand how to live Joyfully, and you've got an immortal population just waiting for a charismatic leader to convince them that death is the best option. I guarantee that if it's been long enough, 99 out of 100 would go along with it.

[Sithdarth]

Yes but your statement was founded on how improbable our survival was and extrapolating from that point that it was equally unlikely for all sentient life to not kill itself. That has at least two major flaws:

1) Our survival "despite the odds" as it were strongly suggests if not out right proves our chances of survival weren't as slim as they seemed. As such that's the point you'd have to extrapolate from for other sentient life. It would seem to suggest that on the whole sentient life is pretty good at not blowing itself up despite its darker elements.

2) Having never really interacted with sentient life we really can't say anything about how it might behave. If our exploration of this planet has taught us anything its that life can take on an unbelievable amount of forms and there is no real reason to assume intelligence is limited to just one. That's rather egocentric in fact. This used to be the case with life in general but its gradually getting phased out. We're discovering vaguely Earth like planets and just lots and lots of planets in general and there are strong indications that life happened twice in our solar system. Not proof mind you at least not yet but strong indications.

[TheSpacePope]

So twice in one system makes it more than likely that there is more life in the universe than you can shake a stick at.
But the mind bending distances keep us apart.

How likely is life according to your odds

[Sithdarth]

There really isn't enough data to make even a qualitative educated guess at how likely live and intelligent life could be. I just wouldn't assume that its unlikely for it to have survived given our own history. Life seems to be pretty good at self preservation in a very general way. Intelligent life slightly less so but its still there.

[TheSpacePope]

Life in itself seems pretty damn tenacious.

life may have been an accident. But it is still hard to explain consciousness in a context that makes any sense without some kind of divine/more advanced being.

But if you keep going back, there is always that nagging, "what came before that" question that bothers me greatly.

I know that the universe stretches infinitely through time and space.
But once you come back to the big bang, then what comes before that, another universe and a gnab gib?

How far back can you go before you are stumbling across a very interesting horizon of can't go back any farther/no evidence.

Just interesting thought that I had, that hopefully spark rigorous debate.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

life may have been an accident. But it is still hard to explain consciousness in a context that makes any sense without some kind of divine/more advanced being.

Why?

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

But if you keep going back, there is always that nagging, "what came before that" question that bothers me greatly.

I know that the universe stretches infinitely through time and space.
But once you come back to the big bang, then what comes before that, another universe and a gnab gib?

How far back can you go before you are stumbling across a very interesting horizon of can't go back any farther/no evidence.

Well, we already have no evidence when it comes to anything before the big bang (that's my understanding, anyway), so there's your answer to that one. But as for a point when there really is nothing before it and not just nothing that we're aware of? Well, based on your own acceptance of the universe's time-infinite nature, there should be no such point.