I think arguments like this come down to the relationship of two variables:
#1. Just how likely/unlikely is abiogenesis.
#2. Just how infinite is the universe.
If the universe were truly, truly infinite and abiogenesis IS naturally-occurring at all, then other life must occur.
But the universe isn’t infinite, it’s just enormous. And abiogenesis is something we really just don’t have a lot of knowledge of at this time.
Well, there’s a helluva lot more to our biology than mere chemistry. Language, for example. Also, recent research has discovered that neural patterns in the brain may play as great a role as the neurons themselves, though science has barely scratched the surface on that.
But yes, I agree that “God” needs to remain far away from debate, if only to avoid any presumptions or misunderstandings on who or what “God” really is.
or
#1a Just how likely/unlikely is panspermia? (as which point the unlikelihood of abiogenesis is irreverent because we are here and it happened.
I’m not willing to grant you this. I recall seeing a very vivid illustration of the point I’m going to make which involved an array of lightbulbs. Each lightbulb represented a region of space; a lit lightbulb indicated that that particular region contained an “advanced interstellar civilization”. The lifetime of a civilization can be represented by a bulb turning on (birth), then after some time has elapsed, turning off (extinction).
It could be the case that the emergence of intelligent life is so rare that, on average, only one lightbulb is lit at any given time. We may go extinct before another civilization emerges.
I see your point, but your point actually reinforces, as opposed to counter my #2:
You are just saying it just does not last, which is a valid counter, but does not negate #2.
But your argumet means a planet bound civilization, so no need for FTL communications, so we should be getting radio signals from them as they don’t need to transition to a faster means of communication.
Looking through this it seems that many have a issue with #2:
So tear it apart:
Is there any reason to assume that the earth is unique?
etc…
But I do think it boils down to that? And it also invokes the emotional argument if we are special or not. And if we should consider ourselves special, is their a logical basis for doing so?
It’s quite possible Terra is not unique; but 'Since life happened here, we have to take that life happened elsewhere as well.’ is pure faith. There’s no reason to assume one happening presupposes the same outcome.
[QUOTE=Senegoid]
…with each surviving god being awarded some piece of the Universe to play with
[/quote]
Those would be demiurges, then.
The Cathars, the Mormons of their day, believed the God of this world was a mere demiurge.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
FWIW I think we are unlikely to wipe ourselves out as a species.
[/QUOTE]
Providing some halfwit doesn’t combine Ebola with the common cold, natürlich.
True.
Probably true. We don’t actually have a good handle on what conditions are like in the most remote parts of the universe. We assume that conditions are even all over, but that’s just an assumption.
The man living next door to me is not unique in my suburb. He works a common job, has a wife and 2.5 kids etc. He won the lottery. Therefore someone else in my suburb must also have won the lottery.
Err. No. That’s not a logical inference at all. Something that is vanishingly uncommon is almost certain to have happened only once. It doesn’t matter how “typical” the subject was.
You don’t need intelligence to use tools. Termites and ants use tools perfectly well.
Using tools intelligently requires intelligence, but it is also a product of intelligence. IOW you need to already be intelligent to use tools intelligently. It doesn’t matter what the advantage of using tools it, it can’t drive the evolution of intelligence.
And adding 2+3 we have somehow managed to get 7
How do you know the average time it takes for advanced civilisation to develop? And if you don’t know that, then how can you say there has been plenty of time? It took 4 billion years for intelligent life to develop here. If the average time required is 400 billion years, then in what sense has there been plenty of time for time for more advanced civilizations to have evolved.
And again 4 + 5 = pi/2.
Can you explain the logic in this? Staining crushed grass with ground up rocks was practical for intercontinental communications for thousands of years. Why would the radio be impractical for interstellar communications?
We established that by adding a non-sequitur to a Gambler’s Fallacy and multiplying it by a Slothful Induction. So not really convincing.
Why must we assume this?
And even if we accept all the preceding, why must we accept this? Did the existence of a trans-continental civilisation in 1700 mean that we have to assume they had found something better than using letters?
WTF? You are now arguing that if humans could invent true instantaneous communication technology, we wouldn’t bother because we don’t have interstellar travel. That’s just silly. The ability to instantly transmit data from drones, for game play, just for plain old data transfer would be so massively advantageous that whoever invented such a thing would be a billionaire within a week.
Can you please explain how you came to the conclusion that there is no need to invent FTL communications if you don’t have interstellar travel.
You haven’t just skipped a few steps. Every step after point one seems like [Insane Troll Logic - TV Tropes]insane troll logic.]( [url)
The Earth is made of common material, therefore those materials must commonly produce life, therefore life must be common, and since life needs to be intelligent to use tools, and tool use is useful, therefore life must have evolved intelligence commonly so it could make use of tools. And since intelligence is common and we haven’t found a shred of evidence for it, that proves that the evidence* must be invisible*!!! The only way the evidence could be invisible is if the space men used some form of instantaneous communication. And since nobody could conceivably want instantaneous communications tech unless they can fly through space, that proves that the space men must have learned to fly through space, commonly. And since space men have learned to fly through space commonly, but we haven’t found any evidence, that just proves that all the evidence is invisible. Don’t you see. My utter absence of evidence is positive proof!!!
And that’s not a parody. That’s the actual argument being presented.
No.
What? How is this “tearing it apart? There is no reason to assume the Earth is unique, therefore life must be common” isn’t tearing your argument apart. It’s just restating the same non sequitur.
Is that a question or a statement?
What argument? How is it invoked?
There is obviously a logical reason to consider ourselves special : because we are. We are the sole member of our genus. Unless you are positing that the universe is populated by lots and lots of intelligences that all coincidentally evolved to be exactly like us, physically, genetically and mentally, then we obviously are unique.
Are you seriously arguing that there are other planets populated by Homo sapiens?
There’s a surprisingly solid argument to be made that we humans are simply the artificial mobile homes for E. coli bacteria. No matter how clever we think we are, we’re simply providing more and more cushy living space for our single-celled overlords.
He’d therefore arguably be a member of – well, an interstellar civilization.
Negating your strawman that humans are common in the universe, what makes us unique? We are simply the product of the same evolutionary process that produced the bed bug. Nothing unique in that, we are just one of many. Now if you want to invoke a ‘god’ that created us specially exempt from evolution, yes that would be unique, but that’s not reality or at least not logical thinking.
How infinite is the galaxy? There’s no way that life in another galaxy (no matter how teeming) could have any affect on life in this galaxy.
It’s actually rather finite. It’s 100,000 light years side to side. It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light-years thick–but out by us it’s just 3000 light-years wide.
That’s like saying if you have a planetary nebula it’s pure faith to assume planets will form, which is contrary to science and physics. You can’t not get planets unless you have a really big and powerful something actively preventing it.
If a planet has the conditions and ingredients for life, it’s silly to assume it will just randomly decide not to happen.
Sorry, but I must side with kanicbird on this point, at least.
Merely observing our own planet, we’ve discovered that life is hyper-abundant, including places where prior logic would assume no life could possibly exist – extremophiles thrive in fumaroles, tube worms exist in the deepest, darkest ocean trenches, etc. Granted, all these lifeforms are very simple and non-intelligent, but such lively abundance compels us to accept the possibility, if not outright assume as fact, that abiogenesis is virtually guaranteed for any location where conditions exist for life to appear.
Well, therein lies the rub. AFAWK, intelligent life has only appeared once, and we’re it. And it’s equally safe to assume that the evolution of sapient intelligence may have indeed been an accident, a lucky draw from the deck. That being said – just because we have yet to detect ANY sign of extraterrestrial intelligence (crop circles & anal probing aside) does not prove or even suggest that no such intelligence exists. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc.
Oh, and just because it’s freakin’ awesome, I fixed your TVTropes link: Insane Troll Logic - TV Tropes
One is a logical sequence — ‘He who says A, must say B’ — since as you say, the materials are ready, and have to mingle. The other is random chance since life is not forced by physics to emerge.
Otherwise we may have observed life spontaneously generating. A theory popular in the 18th century, but not so much since.
I like to think the universe is full of life, and that we’re nothing special, but I read an interesting viewpoint recently in this Aeon Magazine article that makes you think it may be better if we were.
That is brilliant. The more I learn about the universe, the more I don’t doubt that something like this is true.
There is the fungus that takes over ant’s brains to make them climb to the highest place they can to die. And doesn’t that cat disease make people act differently. What’s it called?
It would be funny if E. Coli bacteria was making us over imbibe antibiotics to reduce competition and spurn vaccines because they impeded the bacterial lifestyle… Just what we deserve.
Personally, I pray that SETI is correct that there is intelligent life out there in our finite galaxy, because there is bugger down here on Earth.