Or observe their behaviour.
What was the point of this comment?
Marley posted as a regular poster and you have certainly not been threatened with any offical sanctions for your apparent opinions.
However
you have come to the attention of the staff as a possible troll.
I say “apparent opinions” because, while we will not permit other posters to accuse you of trolling, you have certainly given off more than a whiff of that activity throughout your participation in multiple threads. You have, in several threads, particularly those involving religious belief, posted comments that raised hackles and then explicitly refused to support those comments. Your comments tend strongly toward those that are intended to convey the impression of one thing or another without actually saying anything that has to be defended. Once you established your manner of posting, you immediately began to play martyr, claiming both that other posters were picking on you and that the staff was out to get you, even though you have received no Warnings–yet.
If you wish to participate in debates in this forum, then simply post your honest views–without getting coy and refusing to support your claims. You would also do well to refrain from trying to distract from the discussion by making odd observations about the persons with whom you are debating–particularly when those observations are irrelevant, wrong, or both.
If you are simply here to get attention, you may soon find yourself forfeiting your privilege to post, here.
[ /Moderating ]
We all die alone so we all best believe alone.
So we need newspapers or TV to know if a religion is based on lies?
Atheism is an escape for rational people.
You’re the one who said we had to wager. But I wasn’t only addressing you - I’ve seen dozens of theists bringing up Pascal’s wager, by name or by reinventing it.
An escape into reality? (oh wait that’s the opposite of an escape…)
An escape from ignorance.
This is a crucial point. I want there to be lots of intelligent life out there as much or more than you. But what I want and what the evidence indicates are two different things, which got drummed into my head by my PhD adviser. Life has bee around for about a billion years, I believe, and it took that long for us to show up. How is that inevitable?
What other animal is self aware? Chimps? Far from certain, but in any case they got it mostly from the same evolutionary process where we did. I had a really, really smart dog - he could plan ahead, he could generalize, he could fool me, but he was not self-aware.
While purely physical things may be inevitable given the initial conditions of our universe (which may not be inevitable) evolution is not. What if that asteroid had missed us and the dinosaurs out-competed the mammals yet never became intelligent? It is clear that humans went through a period when there were very few of us - what if we had died out from bad climate conditions or a volcano or something? There is one gene which seems to enable speech - what if the precursor to that gene never mutated?
It is not obvious that planets have to be round - that they are is a clue about planetary formation, and that they are not perfectly round even more of one. Remember, if some god created the planets, there is no reason at all for them to be round.
Bottlenose Dolphins & Elephants may also be self aware.
Oh, the odds are much much worse; who’s to say that the One True God isn’t one that no one on Earth has ever heard of?
And you forget where you put the key…
If you’re saying what I think you’re saying, which is that the universe is deterministic, then no, not agreed at all. It appears that many events are genuinely random, and any universe where this is the case - where randomness is one of the starting conditions - will be fundamentally unpredictable.
What this means as far as planets and life and so forth goes is that, even if they are possible in the universe, they are not inevitable. However, actual observation suggests that planets are incredibly common, and may in fact be ubiquitous - cite.
It’s impossible to say whether this is true for life, as we have as yet no way of observing whether their is life on other planets. What we can say is that it is possible, based on the fact that there is life here, but we have no way of assigning a probability to it.
Even the crystallizing of the basic forces – electric, strong, weak, gravitational – from previous “unified” forces may not be predetermined. If we rewound the tape to the earliest instants of the big bang, and let it roll forward again, these forces might be different.
This, alas, has led a lot of theists to insist that the forces were balanced to permit life to exist, since even tiny differences in the relative strength of these forces might prevent complex chemistry from working. The anthropic principle only says, “Well, it didn’t, as chemistry and life do exist.” Various multiverse theories are also useful, bouncing the odds from “trillions to one against” to “who knows?”
Wagering is no fun if you never get told the odds!
Also, IIRC some versions of the cosmological inflation theories hold that the universe is composed of vast bubbles larger than the observable universe, and each bubble can have different laws of physics to an extent.
What is a billion years or more less in the life of a Universe. Doesn’t strike me as that long for a young Universe at the tender age of 14.
Chimps, Dolphins, someone else mentioned Elephants, Horses, and yes I would add Dogs.
But agreed I’m not an expert on the matter, just my own experience with animals.
So what if that asteroid had missed us, there seem to be plenty of solar systems and therefore chances in the Universe as a whole for the conditions of life to in all likelihood to exist somewhere out there several times over.
Well, ok planets are not perfectly round, but seriously you think we will find a square planet somewhere out there? No I don’t remember bringing any god into our discussion on this topic, so I’m not assuming the Universe was created by a god.
I’m perfectly ok accepting that the Universe, time and space itself all popped into existence 14 billion years ago. I’ll admit the idea should be an enormous shit disturber and is totally counter common sense, where we tend to assume that you can’t get something for nothing. But clearly for Universes, that isn’t necessarily the case.
No I’m not supposing determinism. I’m supposing that the physical laws describe possible relationships and that those physical laws are specific to this Universe.
I agree events may be random, but certainly once the Universe popped into existence the unfolding of events were constrained by what popped into existence. Or are you saying the forces and laws which describe these relationships are also random chance events likely to change at any time for no discernible reason?
Yep! That was in Guth’s original 1982 paper. He said, for instance, it could explain why our universe has a vast dominance of matter over anti-matter. It could be true in this local “bubble” of space-time, but might not be true in the whole shebang.
I absolutely fell in love with Guth’s “expansionary phase” the first time I read of it. In a very unscientific way, I wanted it to be true! I’m delighted every time it gets more observational support.
I think that there is a way. But damned if I know what it is.
In fact, there is good evidence to suggest that the “laws” of the universe have changed over time for no discernible reason. See Paul Dirac’s work on the changing gravitational constant (it’s shrinking over time) or Alexander Shlyakhter’s work on Oklo (an honest-to-Bob natural nuclear fission reactor) that showed that the fine-structure constant (alpha constant) is getting bigger, which would mean that the speed of light has changed since the universe began.
John Webb wrote an excellent article about the work of some Australian astronomers who claim that they’ve found real evidence that constants are actually inconstant called “Are the laws of nature changing with time?” back in 2003.
You’re still not getting it. I personally think that there are a lot of civilizations in the galaxy, not to mention other galaxies. I can argue logically for this, at least as well as you. But as the ancient Greeks demonstrated, brilliant logic does not cut it in science by itself. We need data. We have data on planetary formation, we’ve seen planetary formation that matches our models, and it seems that planets form as a side effect of star formation. We might find that self awareness evolves almost inevitably given time, but we don’t know yet.
The question is, what is the probability that intelligent life will arise as a function of time. We know it is non-zero, but we don’t know more than that.
We know how planets form, and we know why they are roundish. If we found a square planet, it would be a very clear example of intelligent design in some form. That or a fan of Superman.
If the net energy of the universe is 0, which may be the case, then we just got nothing from nothing - but the nothing is not evenly distributed, That is something else we don’t know about. Being able to ask the questions shows a lot of progress given that it is only 500 years or so after the invention of the telescope.