The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

This thread has run its course (no course at all).

You've been bagging on this this thread with like ill mannered
misconceptions from it's inception.

I think it might be just getting started.

I'm just calling out lies when I see them. You got nothing, you were unable to demonstrate a single fallacy in anything related to drake equation Every time I see your avatar I think of screaming whiny children because that's literally what your posts sound like.

originally posted by: carsforkids
There is intelligence in everything we see with our eyes
Even our eyes. Atheists are determined that there isn't.

I love things just as they are because I love the wait and see.

Life is full of intelligent riddles. lol

Another dishonest straw man.

Atheists lack belief in GOD, not intelligence itself. STOP LYING. Intelligence evolved, and its existence doesn't automatically mean created by intelligence. If intelligence is required to be created by intelligence then where did the first intelligence come from you stupid #?

originally posted by: Barcs
Every time I see your avatar I think of screaming whiny children because that's literally what your posts sound like.

Every time I see your name I am reminded that your intention is to barc. No level-headed conversation, just barking. Your name is a Freudian slip at its best.

originally posted by: Barcs
If intelligence is required to be created by intelligence then where did the first intelligence come from you stupid #?

Dude, chill out. Just because someone believes differently than you doesn't make them a stupid #. Your sort of intolerance is the degradation of humankind.

The first intelligence didn't need to be created, because it always existed. You think from a limited 3rd temporal perspective, but this higher intelligence would by definition not be limited by the things in the lower dimensions. This makes sense in light of Newton's law that something cannot come from nothing. The only way around this is that something always existed, and never required to come from nothing. This is the primordial always-existent (alpha-omega) intelligence from which all things came.

a reply to: Barcs

The biggest lies are the ones you tell yourself young man. So pathetic.

a reply to: Barcs

Atheists lack belief in GOD,

They also lack common sense and replace it with pure psychopathy.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
This has to be the most ridiculous thread ever made.

THE FALLACY OF THE DRAKE EQUATION

Yet not a single person has actually outlined a single fallacy used in it, they just lied about it. To them it's a fallacy not to factor in Intelligent Design, something that is complete pseudo-science and has no meritorious support whatsoever and is only championed by Crackpots like Stephen Meyer and William Lane Craig, but ironically they invoke fallacy by attacking it.

This thread has run its course (no course at all).

No dude, you are incapable of perceiving perspectives outside of your own due to excessive bias against anything that defies your nihilist-random-generation-of-life mentality. Do you really think it is more likely that intelligence came from unintelligence rather than intelligence? That is as unintelligent as it gets. Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence. Humans create humans, mice create mice, plants create plants, intelligence creates intelligence.

That means aliens make aliens and gods make gods. Which implies three things: There's more than one god, and gods can be made. What a twist!

But this still has no bearing on the drake equation because the whole "intelligent creator" variable is a complete unknown. It's not like you can watch a deity making a planet and planting the seeds of life to derive a reliable formula from it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

There's more than one god, and gods can be made. What a twist!

straight out of the gnostic library... a very old twist that ended up with people being murdered

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
If intelligence is required to be created by intelligence then where did the first intelligence come from you stupid #?

Dude, chill out. Just because someone believes differently than you doesn't make them a stupid #. Your sort of intolerance is the degradation of humankind.

The first intelligence didn't need to be created, because it always existed. You think from a limited 3rd temporal perspective, but this higher intelligence would by definition not be limited by the things in the lower dimensions. This makes sense in light of Newton's law that something cannot come from nothing. The only way around this is that something always existed, and never required to come from nothing. This is the primordial always-existent (alpha-omega) intelligence from which all things came.

But...that is a contradiction to what you said before.

Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence

The first intelligence didn't need to be created

I wonder how you get your information that explains how 4+ dimensions work and why you arent a nobel prize winner for revolutionizing physics.

a reply to: Akragon

Love the Gnostic story. They should make a tv show based on it. Or a movie.

But then im still waitin on that damn Anunnaki movie!!!



So many good stories out there.

How much would the Catholic church make if they paid Kevin Feige to do a trilogy of the fall of Samael and co.

Im an atheist and id pay to see that blockbuster!! More than once if its a good story.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I know you already know... but for others what your referring to is the Special pleading fallacy.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).
This is the application of a double standard.

In the classic distinction among material fallacies, cognitive fallacies, and formal fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of a cognitive fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.

In medieval philosophy, it was not assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts an assumption of existential import.


An example of this is as per Barc's post above;
Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence.
The first intelligence didn't need to be created.

Reason is a powerful tool indeed

a reply to: Barcs

Due to science being progressive our current understanding will appear primitive in another 1000 years and subject to ridicule. My problem is with people who accept science as all knowing and unquestionable. A lot of modern science, especially physics is based on hypothetical parameters with no observational or experimental proof. Dark matter and energy have as much in the way of physical proof as God, they require faith and belief in equations. How is that different from religion?

We have tiny pieces of a much larger puzzle and the mysteries of the universe can't always be reduced to mathematics.

Ptolemy used the same tools we use today, math, experimentation and observation. Sure, the sharing of knowledge was limited by the communication medium of the time and his tools weren't as accurate or advanced, still for a long time it was the most accurate model of celestial motion we had. It was considered a marvel of science for over 1200 years.

The Syntaxis Mathematica used spherical trigonometry, logarithmic scales, and described quite accurately equinoxes, solstices, epicycles, lunar parallax, had a catalogue of over 1000 stars with ecliptic longitude and latitude, it also discusses retrograde motion of planets.

Sure, it wasn't perfect and naturally the scientific method and tools advanced but personally i think it's doing Ptolemy a disservice to describe him as anything other than a scientist.

He was himself heavily influenced by the work of Euclid, Hipparchus and Pythagoras. In my opinion the true founders of what we now call mathematical science.

a reply to: Barcs

Do atheists lack belief in God? Reject the notion of creation? Or, rule out the existence of intelligent design altogether?

I'd suggest although these BELIEFS are closely related they aren't mutually inclusive.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Taken totally out of context, from a discussion that wasn't centred on the original topic.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'll really struggle to show you a secret that wasn't leaked. That's literally impossible.

As others have said this is a silly argument and a wild tangent from the original discussion. Let's get back on topic. If it helps i'll say that i'm wrong? There's no such thing as secrets.

Maybe we could move on now?

Do you mind if i ask your theological belief? I only ask because i'm interested in Freemasonry and always thought belief in a monotheistic deity was a requirement?

Do atheists lack belief in God? Reject the notion of creation?
Or, rule out the existence of intelligent design altogether?

Most atheists believe;
Gumball analogyEdit

Matt Dillahunty's explanation of the philosophical burden of proof is presented in his gumball analogy.

For a hypothetical jar filled with a large number of gumballs, any positive claim about whether there were an odd or even number of gumballs would be dubious without further supporting evidence.

Therefore, not believing the claim "the number of gumballs is even" without evidence does not mean believing that the number is, in fact, odd.

Likewise, not believing the claim "there is a god" without evidence does not mean believing that there isn't one.

This is intended to demonstrate that the common retort "what is your proof that there is no god?" is in fact a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof.


Some atheists believe in the spirituality and/or supernatural.

a reply to: Grenade

Q1 do i " lack a belief in alledged GODS " [ note plural ] ?

A1 - yes

Q2 - do i reject the notion of creation ?

A2 - in the context of religious belief - ie young erarth creationism - yes

Q3 - do i rule out the existance of inteligent design ?

A3 - in the context of religious belief - yes ie " inteligent design " as the assanine " replacement " for creationism that is attempted to foist religious content into education

originally posted by: Grenade
I'll really struggle to show you a secret that wasn't leaked.

Exactly, which is why your flat earth analogy was challenged.

a reply to: Grenade

oh FFS - it was YOU who spun this entire secrets tangent

yes - people can keep sectets - but vows // pacts of secrecy can also break down for multitudes of reasons

the issue that i have - is when you attempt to apply " people keep secrets " - to such an over arcing concept like the spheroid model of the earth .

originally posted by: Skyfox81
a reply to: TzarChasm

I know you already know... but for others what your referring to is the Special pleading fallacy.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception).
This is the application of a double standard.

In the classic distinction among material fallacies, cognitive fallacies, and formal fallacies, special pleading most likely falls within the category of a cognitive fallacy, as it would seem to relate to "lip service", rationalization and diversion (abandonment of discussion). Special pleading also often resembles the "appeal to" logical fallacies.

In medieval philosophy, it was not assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts an assumption of existential import.


An example of this is as per Barc's post above;
Intelligence is a requirement to generate intelligence.
The first intelligence didn't need to be created.

Reason is a powerful tool indeed

We finally found the fallacy! Good work team. Everyone can go home now.