The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: Jay-morris

Who are you to define god?

Many religions hold the belief i just stated.

Maybe you are just so blinkered you haven't done any research into the theology i just proposed or the science behind it?

Just because your interpretation is a simplified Christian god doesn't give you the right to tell others how to interpret their own perspective.

I have given you many examples and references should you wish to research further as to why i believe the universe was designed and created.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You like to invoke the simulation theory a lot and seem to give it some credence which i won't challenge.

However, if you think this is possible then whoever programmed the simulation would be our "god" and creation would be true.

Again, most religious texts shouldn't be taken literally however there is some truth hidden away if you ask me.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Who are you to define god?

Many religions hold the belief i just stated.

Maybe you are just so blinkered you haven't done any research into the theology i just proposed or the science behind it?

Just because your interpretation is a simplified Christian god doesn't give you the right to tell others how to interpret their own perspective.

I have given you many examples and references should you wish to research further as to why i believe the universe was designed and created.

Have not been reading this post? We are debating the God in the bible, which there is no evidence for, unless you have evidence?

We have developed living organisms, does that mean we are Gods? If we create AI that is self aware, does that mean we are Gids? Seriously! Use some logic!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

You like to invoke the simulation theory a lot and seem to give it some credence which i won't challenge.

However, if you think this is possible then whoever programmed the simulation would be our "god" and creation would be true.

Again, most religious texts shouldn't be taken literally however there is some truth hidden away if you ask me.

They would mot be our God, just the ones who built and runs the simulation. Just like if we invented the same simulation. You think they should be worshipped lol

a reply to: Jay-morris

No, you're arguing with carsforkids about the God from the bible. This thread is about the Drake equation and then spirals off on many wild tangents.

As for my contribution it is purely to interject some information which shows science doesn't completely destroy the notion of creation.

Again, you are defining God by other peoples interpretation and painting anyone who believes in creation with the same brush regardless of how they came to that conclusion.

I hold my own opinions, if you would like to challenge them i'm happy to debate but bundling my opinions together with another poster and confusing our conversation doesn't help.

There is a remote possibility that we are the only life to arise in the universe.
Or the first.
Also, A random cause may occur only once, and never again.
There obviously exists an answer to this, but it lies beyond our capability to measure.
the observational powers of science are, at this point, limited.

Is the attribution of the unknown to supernatural forces benign ?
or do false beliefs have consequences.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

You like to invoke the simulation theory a lot and seem to give it some credence which i won't challenge.

However, if you think this is possible then whoever programmed the simulation would be our "god" and creation would be true.

Again, most religious texts shouldn't be taken literally however there is some truth hidden away if you ask me.

They would mot be our God, just the ones who built and runs the simulation. Just like if we invented the same simulation. You think they should be worshipped lol

I think showing thanks to the entity who created our existence, built our physical reality and runs the "simulation" would be a good idea. It would certainly deserve some kind of appreciation.

You are over-estimating human intelligence. Don't let sci-fi fool you, we are not capable of creating something so complex as the entire universe. Possibly in a technological singularity an AGI could create something comparable to a believable simulation. That would then make the AGI a god.

Personally i don't buy the simulation argument, i don't rule it out however i think it's just a way for science and 21st century philosophy to take even more of a role in our lives.

The problem i have is that we are not machines, our minds are not computers and should not be described with the same language. We are biological beings and our evolution was not designed to break reality down into equations and numbers. You can have other perspectives about the nature of reality without having to always break them down to binary digits.

a reply to: Grenade

Who are you to define god?

He doesn't even realize he displays all the traits of a psychopath

According to the 2014 journal article Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey published in the journal Frontiers of Psychology lack of belief in God is positively associated with psychopathy.[7]

source

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Who are you to define god?

Many religions hold the belief i just stated.

Maybe you are just so blinkered you haven't done any research into the theology i just proposed or the science behind it?

Just because your interpretation is a simplified Christian god doesn't give you the right to tell others how to interpret their own perspective.

I have given you many examples and references should you wish to research further as to why i believe the universe was designed and created.

Have not been reading this post? We are debating the God in the bible, which there is no evidence for, unless you have evidence?

We have developed living organisms, does that mean we are Gods? If we create AI that is self aware, does that mean we are Gids? Seriously! Use some logic!

It depends on your definition of God. If your definition is the creator of the universe who controls everything within it, then the AI would fit that criteria within a closed loop simulation as it exists outwith its own creation.

As far as i'm aware humans have never created life in the lab without natural DNA from another living organism.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Grenade

Who are you to define god?

He doesn't even realize he displays all the traits of a psychopath

According to the 2014 journal article Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: results from a large community survey published in the journal Frontiers of Psychology lack of belief in God is positively associated with psychopathy.[7]

source

What a compete load of rubbish! So, because I do not believe in God, thst mskes me a psychopath. Can you sink any lower? You are religous, so of course you can!

a reply to: Jay-morris

Both of you are really just mud-slinging without any real thought about what you post. Everyone is entitled to their own belief whether it's backed by science or not. You should both take a step back and try to find some common ground because none of you are talking much sense or showing any kind of compromise.

This thread starting to become a bad joke and very predictable.

An Atheist, Religious Zealot and Agnostic walk into a bar......

a reply to: Grenade

This thread starting to become a bad joke and very predictable.

Just now?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

And how is this evidence? It is a story, not evidence! Seriously! Can you do better than that?

What would suffice for you as evidence then? The evidence is everywhere

originally posted by: Barcs

For example what specific fallacy does the Drake Equation commit? Nobody has answered that question

It was mentioned multiple times that the fallacy committed is the assumption that there was no intelligence involved. The Drake equation is trying to guess the probability of life coming to be throughout the universe. If intelligence were involved, and we are the creation of a hyper-intelligence... then the likelihood of our existence is 100%, because that hyper-intelligence willed us to be. Ironically, the Drake equation is an (attempt at an) intelligent predictability model attempting to estimate intelligent life coming to be from presumed unintelligent processes. In other words, Atheism is an oxymoron.

The cosmos is intelligent. Atheism believes, against all evidence, that it is an unintelligent process.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Both of you are really just mud-slinging without any real thought about what you post. Everyone is entitled to their own belief whether it's backed by science or not. You should both take a step back and try to find some common ground because none of you are talking much sense or showing any kind of compromise.

This thread starting to become a bad joke and very predictable.

An Atheist, Religious Zealot and Agnostic walk into a bar......

Every time

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris

And how is this evidence? It is a story, not evidence! Seriously! Can you do better than that?

What would suffice for you as evidence then? The evidence is everywhere

originally posted by: Barcs

For example what specific fallacy does the Drake Equation commit? Nobody has answered that question

It was mentioned multiple times that the fallacy committed is the assumption that there was no intelligence involved. The Drake equation is trying to guess the probability of life coming to be throughout the universe. If intelligence were involved, and we are the creation of a hyper-intelligence... then the likelihood of our existence is 100%, because that hyper-intelligence willed us to be. Ironically, the Drake equation is an (attempt at an) intelligent predictability model attempting to estimate intelligent life coming to be from presumed unintelligent processes. In other words, Atheism is an oxymoron.

The cosmos is intelligent. Atheism believes, against all evidence, that it is an unintelligent process.

It's a thought exercise, not a formula. It's just a brain teaser that was never meant to actually answer any questions. Drake himself said as much.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

It's a thought exercise, not a formula. It's just a brain teaser that was never meant to actually answer any questions. Drake himself said as much.

Nonetheless, he doesn't factor an intelligent cause in the thought experiment. If there is an intelligence greater than us, capable of all things we think are impossible, then it would be easy to create all things in an ordered and meticulous perpetual process that we see exhibited all around us and within us. The organization and mathematical precision of our existence is insurmountable for randomness to create. There must be an intelligent cause. This should come as good news.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

It's a thought exercise, not a formula. It's just a brain teaser that was never meant to actually answer any questions. Drake himself said as much.

Nonetheless, he doesn't factor an intelligent cause in the thought experiment. If there is an intelligence greater than us, capable of all things we think are impossible, then it would be easy to create all things in an ordered and meticulous perpetual process that we see exhibited all around us and within us. The organization and mathematical precision of our existence is insurmountable for randomness to create. There must be an intelligent cause. This should come as good news.

Assuming we know the first thing about what hyper intelligent aliens would or wouldn't do.

Seems to me the fallacy is happening because people can't just accept a cute puzzle made by a physicist who knows better than to take the topic too seriously.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Assuming we know the first thing about what hyper intelligent aliens would or wouldn't do.

Seems to me the fallacy is happening because people can't just accept a cute puzzle made by a physicist who knows better than to take the topic too seriously.

So long as people take atheism as gospel and teach others the same, I must appeal to logic for others to see how absurd of a philosophy it is. The Archetype wishes for people to understand, and not be stuck at a nihilistic dead-end thinking we're mutant monkeys.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Assuming we know the first thing about what hyper intelligent aliens would or wouldn't do.

Seems to me the fallacy is happening because people can't just accept a cute puzzle made by a physicist who knows better than to take the topic too seriously.

So long as people take atheism as gospel and teach others the same, I must appeal to logic for others to see how absurd of a philosophy it is. The Archetype wishes for people to understand, and not be stuck at a nihilistic dead-end thinking we're mutant monkeys.

Atheism doesn't have a gospel. I'm also fairly certain it wouldn't make such illiterate claims. A simple Google search can clear that up.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Atheism doesn't have a gospel.

Correct, gospel means "good news", and there is no good news with atheism. It is a dead end, and even if it, against all odds, turns out to be true, there is no yield to those who believed it anyway because all returns to naught.