In God's Image
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 07:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When atheists such as yourself, have trouble believing we’re a matter of cosmic luck,

Where does say say that? Where have any of us said that?

Quote:all it tends to do is coddle my view

Coddle? I don't think that is the appropriate word .

Quote:that the alternative to my beliefs are not all that believable, even to parties that should be the most receptive to it. I think it’s absurd to believe we’re product of cosmic luck, perhaps you even agree with that?

You can phrase it any way you like, but we are the product of chance.

Quote:So what’s the alternative to cosmic luck here, if we’re ruling out cosmic intent, purpose, plan, etc…? As well as ruling out lack of belief as an alternative.

There is no need of an alternative since chance is not ruled out.

Quote:(I know you might be more comfortable appealing to science here, but this isn’t a science question, and doesn’t really involve any questioning of established science here, it’s an ontological question, which science doesn’t do. )

No, this is precisely a question for science. We simply don't yet have enough data.

Quote:Whatever our world is, it isn’t a nice thing analogous to a vacation in the Hamptons, but a monstrous and beautiful thing, full of pain and beauty, and joy, tragedy and hope, death and life.

That is a very elegant description.

Quote:Whatever creator we might imagine behind it, is likely not be of the sort of character we might associate with Santa Claus, and on some perches look like a contemous and malevolent being, sort of like is said of the God of the OT.

It really looks like the product of chance, not of a creator.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-03-2016, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2016 08:40 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: In God's Image
Tomasia,

if you think its absurd to believe that life can originate "spontaneously" (you keep using loaded terms like accident or luck, which is kinda scientifically dishonest by the way, since it indicates that you want to insert your god. Dont think we are too stupid to see this).

Go and call NASA and ESA and tell them they can cancel their plans for sending probes to Europa or Enceladus for example. If we look at Titan, we already see a mix of complex carbon based chemistry and a surprisingly well equipped atmosphere. Too bad the temperature is too low for life (as we suppose it to be).

Emergence of life needs (as it seems to us) quite unique circumstances, energy, and probably lots of time too.

Lets look at the statistical data we have:
  • Time we looked so far: 2 decades max
  • 1 planet with life: Earth
  • Several hundred or thousand more observed planets (Kepler misison), no life found yet (not very surprising, because the sensitiviy and methods to detect planets are such, that detection of planets that can probably harbor life is rather unlikey, which skews our statistics)
  • We also know that many solar systems are not very favourable for life, because a majority of systems ar binary and/or harbour red dwarfs. -> we need a big(ger) sample size
  • 3 candidates not completely ruled out in our own solar system alone (Enceladus, Europa, Mars)
  • Finding of complex carbon chemistry in the dust rings of other stars

Mars most probably had water, wich is becoming more and more likely the more we investigate. Its also undisputed that once it had a significant atmosphere which could have provided higher temperatures.

Tidal effects maybe create enough heat down low under the crusts of Enceladus and Europa = energy needed to form complex molecules and possibly life.

Titan with more energy availiable may would have been a good candidate, we will never know.

We even keep finding new forms of life on earth where we formerly thought it would be impossible due to harsh conditions like heat and availiability of sulphur instead of oxygen. Black smokers for example. Maybe even lake Vostok. Its still disputed if the life found there was rather pollution from the drills or endemic. But if it turns out to be true, it may hint to the fact that while life may not originate there, it can keep existing for a long time under very unfavourable conditions.

So, in the face of those facts, its quite disingenuous to say its "absurd" or "statistically improbable" that life can originate.
We havent looked long enough. We havent looked hard enough. We havent counted enough planets for a good and representative sample size.
Saying such things as you did without evidence either to disprove the notion that life may indeed be out there or evidence that suggests another theory like "goddididt" is more a sign of your own ignorance than anything else.

Its like pulling 5 tickets out of the lottery and then telling that a jackpot does not exist, or arguing that a jackpot is statistically absurd. If you dont like particularly big or small numbers then by all means get out of the way and let serious scientists do their work. But please dont tell them its "impossible" or "absurd" to look for life.

The only intellectually honest answer currently is: "We dont know...yet", and not "bah, impossible".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
30-03-2016, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2016 09:26 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 08:36 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Tomasia,

if you think its absurd to believe that life can originate "spontaneously" (you keep using loaded terms like accident or luck, which is kinda scientifically dishonest by the way, since it indicates that you want to insert your god. Dont think we are too stupid to see this).

I don't think that. As previously stated there is no questions here for me about the science, as might be the case with typical ID proponent, and creationist, which I'm not. If science we're describing how we moved from point A to point B, then there's nothing in that chain of events that I particularly inclined to question. Like I said the question is entirely an ontological one, more about why A.

Quote:The only intellectually honest answer currently is: "We dont know...yet", and not "bah, impossible".

So the only intellectually honest answer is not to suggest we are product of a cosmic accident, or intentional, but to reserve ourselves to a lack of belief? In your view not only is a theistic position intellectually dishonest, but a non-theistic view that suggest we're a product of a cosmic accident is also dishonest?

I'd also take issue with the idea, if we're considering the scientific method here, that it's matter of not knowing yet, as previously stated the view one way or the other is an ontological position, and science by it's very nature doesn't do ontology. All it does it deal with question of how A moved to point B, but not why A. So I guess according to your suggestion we should all reserve ourselves and be stuck for all eternity with lacking belief.


Quote:So, in the face of those facts, its quite disingenuous to say its "absurd" or "statistically improbable" that life can originate.

Please note I wasn't speaking about life, but a particular form of life, life like ourselves. We can look at the entire history of various forms of biological life that emerged here, and recognize that a creature like ourself is a one-off. That whatever ecological niche, and environmental pressures that produced creatures like our selves, has occurred once, even in our own biological history, and given a planet capable of sustaining life, and the condition present for it to arise in the first place.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 09:22 AM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 07:47 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(30-03-2016 07:34 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Who?

ditto/dildo whatever his actual name was.

dimaniac?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 09:46 AM
RE: In God's Image
You are -dishonestly so- claiming now that these were philosophical claims of yours. Nice packpeddling, after i argued against your originally scientific claim. Just a little bit disingenuous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 09:46 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are -dishonestly so- claiming now that these were philosophical claims of yours. Nice packpeddling, after i argued against your originally scientific claim. Just a little bit disingenuous.

Judging that I've made the same point not just to you, but to Sitasky, as well numerous times in other discussions here, and I'd say I've been fairly consistent.

It seems you misunderstood something I said, which happens, and I took the time to clarify that, to make my points even clearer to you, while you on the other hand prefer to accuse me of backpedalling?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: In God's Image
It's not luck, it's probability.

If we had 4 dice, and we threw it up in the air. What's the probability of them landing equaling 24?

There is only one way. All faces need to land on 6. That's a 1/1296 probability that they would land equaling 24. Large and odds. but the probability is still there. It's not impossible. If we took a billion dice threw them up in the air what are the odds of them all landing face up with 6's. These odds become even more astronomical. But still possible.

When people use or say luck that tend to think of it in terms of how it's benefiting an individual. We would count crossing an intersection and getting hit by a car unlucky. Or the same situation but having the car barley missing you as lucky. Both situations have their probable odds of happening but we way it on benefits to the person. But what we label it as doesn't change the odds.

So how do we put this to terms of Cosmic luck. What is the probability of a life, the universe and everything coming into existence. (42) We're the chance of a billion dice all landing face up. Tiny chance but still possible. We look out at the planets and we see little to nothing quit like us. really anywhere. So being alone in a cosmic void is that considered lucky or unlucky?

Yes one could say. how special we are, or how lucky we must be to be self aware. But just because the odds are astronomically against us doesn't mean that the probability of us coming into being is anything but capable of happening. We can only exist on a planet that we could exist on.

Since the odds of us existing due to natural means can be factored. And the odds of a "supernatural" means can not weighted, touched, seen or measured. We are left with only ably to coming up with a probability threw natural means. With the 1/XXXX probability of life accruing the due to occurrences that happen threw natural means. That means there's a slim but not impossible chance of us coming about without a god in play.

The universe presents it's self under the same odds. Just as one would expect if a cosmic creator wasn't a factor. Other wise the universe would be teaming with life. And poping up every where we look with no rhyme or reason. A being that would be able to create existence at whim must have gotten board after he made earth. Or he's restricted with the tools he has available. Which would reduce their/his ability making him/them less godly then people portray him/them as.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
30-03-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 12:13 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  It's not luck, it's probability.

If we had 4 dice, and we threw it up in the air. What's the probability of them landing equaling 24?

There is only one way. All faces need to land on 6. That's a 1/1296 probability that they would land equaling 24. Large and odds. but the probability is still there. It's not impossible. If we took a billion dice threw them up in the air what are the odds of them all landing face up with 6's. These odds become even more astronomical. But still possible.

I'm not suggesting it is impossible, just pointing that it's astronomical, that why I'd frame it as a cosmic accident.

But there's another layer here as well, which is not really about the odds all. You're only able to roll four 6, because the dice themselves are weighted in way to make that possible, composed in way to allow a 6 as a possibility. As a result of this, given enough rolls any combination of rolls from 1-6 are a possibility.

What's even more astounding to me is the nature of the dice itself here. That matter has the capacity to organize itself in such away to produce conscious self-aware creatures, a means for the cosmos to know itself. And this astonishment has nothing to do with probability, and more to do with why something rather than nothing. Why matter with such capacities, than not. The existence of which is a profound thing in and of itself.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 02:42 PM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 07:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When atheists such as yourself, have trouble believing we’re a matter of cosmic luck, all it tends to do is coddle my view that the alternative to my beliefs are not all that believable, even to parties that should be the most receptive to it. I think it’s absurd to believe we’re product of cosmic luck, perhaps you even agree with that?

So what’s the alternative to cosmic luck here, if we’re ruling out cosmic intent, purpose, plan, etc…? As well as ruling out lack of belief as an alternative.

(I know you might be more comfortable appealing to science here, but this isn’t a science question, and doesn’t really involve any questioning of established science here, it’s an ontological question, which science doesn’t do.

The only reason I rejected your claim of "cosmic luck" is because you related it to us trying to go back in time and trying again:

(30-03-2016 07:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If we could rewind the clock once again, a creature like ourself might not be a inevitable outcome.

All I was saying is if we are to use the exact same model of the universe we have now, with all the same "ingredients" that are yet to be proven as "pre-ordained" we would always end up with the same result as we are already here and not just us but literally billions of life forms that have existed on this planet. As long as nothing changes whatsoever and we go back and simply witness how it came to be we would always be the inevitable result.

You can say that if we changed one element we may not be here, that's fair enough. Yes all the elements of life can be seen as occurring by chance or randomly and there is no reason to say it had to come together using an all-powerful or magical being. I guess I just have issue with the term "lucky", I feel it's a lack of knowledge or understanding. Also the term lucky is used in a positive connotation, yes I do feel lucky to be alive and happy but as a whole can we really say human life is a fortuitous event? I just think we have done many wonderful things but we are also utterly destroying our planet. if we don't end up destroying ourselves along with it we should be fine but if we do, I think any other consciousness that visits our planet and does any study will find that we were maybe not so lucky but only time will tell.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2016, 02:47 PM
RE: In God's Image
(30-03-2016 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not suggesting it is impossible, just pointing that it's astronomical, that why I'd frame it as a cosmic accident.

Then we agree for the most part. But I don't know if i would count it as an accident. If two comets collide with each other after floating threw space after avoiding each other for millions of years. Would that be counted as an accident? It wasn't intentional. It just sort of happened.

(30-03-2016 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But there's another layer here as well, which is not really about the odds all. You're only able to roll four 6, because the dice themselves are weighted in way to make that possible, composed in way to allow a 6 as a possibility. As a result of this, given enough rolls any combination of rolls from 1-6 are a possibility.

You lost me a little? Yes. any combination of rolls is possible. But certon combinations have better odds then others. In a stranded dice game you have a greater odds of rolling a 7 because you have 6 possible out comes as compared to snake eyes that only has one out come.

I was trying to better explain probability. And how luck doesn't equate into anything.

Like when a person wins the lottery. We would say that person was Lucky but the odds where someone would eventually get that combination.

(30-03-2016 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's even more astounding to me is the nature of the dice itself here. That matter has the capacity to organize itself in such away to produce conscious self-aware creatures, a means for the cosmos to know itself. And this astonishment has nothing to do with probability, and more to do with why something rather than nothing. Why matter with such capacities, than not. The existence of which is a profound thing in and of itself.

[Image: 1455192049335555213.jpg]

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: