It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Barcs
Then you can't say that intelligence only comes from intelligence!!! How do you not see that?
This is why God is referred to as "unbegotten". God never had to come to be, because God always existed.
originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs
It's exactly the same as the claim that there is a god.
No it isn't not rationally not logically not intellectually and not
even by common sense. Not to mention the loser odds atheism
is up against. You're ridiculous even to compare.
Science is a blah blah blah method of blah blah blah. Try not to have
an aneurysm.
Science doesn't have anything to do with proving Gods existence.
originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs
So, Newton, Copernicus weren't scientists because we didn't have aviation or space travel to verify their claims?
I can see it's pointless debating you.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Barcs
Then you can't say that intelligence only comes from intelligence!!! How do you not see that?
This is why God is referred to as "unbegotten". God never had to come to be, because God always existed.
This is a fundamental part of theology and philosophy.
originally posted by: Barcs
Irrelevant red herring. I don't care how you refer to God or what you believe. That doesn't magically make your special pleading fallacy disappear. If intelligence can only come from intelligence, you can't say that the intelligence in God just exists from nothing. Jesus Christ!!!
Prove a single thing you just said. God existing is an unfalsfiable claim and as a skeptic I treat all claims the same. If you can't back it up or demonstrate it, you have no logical justification to say what is more probable. You are literally just repeating your personal beliefs as fact when you have zero evidence. Please stop the dishonesty.
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Even if other habitable planets exist, is there any evidence that life could originate on them by chance?
originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Just to be clear, factor fl (read it as f1 before) in the Drake equation is spelled out as such on wikipedia:
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
The underlying thinking when philosophers start speculating about any number above 0 regarding fl, is really:
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life by chance at some point
Since it has been calculated that the development of life (the chemical evolution of life fron non-living matter, a.k.a. abiogenesis) by chance, is an impossibility (see earlier commentary for details and why the word "impossible" is an appropiate and truthful/accurate description), the value of fl is stuck at 0 (that is, if you add "by chance" in your consideration, and not sneakily talk past that crucial issue by merely saying "develop" as explained earlier). No amount of wishful thinking and dancing around the facts warrants any speculations above 0. Now swap out "life" with "pink unicorns" and the evidential situation is just the same. There's as much evidence of pink unicorns developing by chance on other planets as any other form of life, namely: none, nada, noppes. And the evidence we do have, points in the other direction, that it is impossible to have happened by chance. Some good marketing endeavors of the latter idea though ("any other form of life"). Leaving out the inconvenient facts I mentioned on page 6 in much more detail.
The following factors in the Drake equation are also discussed on page 6 by me (in the parts I didn't quote with my previous comment):
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Source: wikipedia, see link earlier
Now of particular interest concerning the last factor there, may be my comment on page 39 about earth's magnetic field and atmosphere, and how those two dynamic shields are requirements to make earth a "habitable planet" (a planet that can support life). Are these requirements ever considered when philosophers are speculating about any number higher than 0 for ne? Habitability is not only about being the right distance from the right startype after all. At this point you may want to read back what I quoted from an article from 1990 in my first comment on page 6 (or the one from 2000).
As I asked near the end of my first 2 comments on page 6 (it's 1 comment split up because of space issues):
Even if other habitable planets exist, is there any evidence that life could originate on them by chance?
I've given my opinion in this comment regarding the answer to that question, but I noticed nobody else touched it. Even when responding to my commentary (or follow-up commentary). Not entirely sure, but I think the very word "chance" was avoided in any of the responses I've received to my commentary, as if it's a 'no-go zone', similar to this 'no-go zone' (no need to watch beyond 4:50, he has some weird way of phrasing things from that point onwards):
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Barcs
Then you can't say that intelligence only comes from intelligence!!! How do you not see that?
This is why God is referred to as "unbegotten". God never had to come to be, because God always existed.
This is a fundamental part of theology and philosophy.
originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TzarChasm
Tzar you are a gem in my book and I just wanna stress
that I would never mean to insult you. Respect heffe,
I wish I could carry myself the way you do. Admirable.
My conclusion: The Drake equation is about as useful as an equation to speculate about the number of advanced civilizations of pink unicorns living on other planets in our universe, originating there by chance.
Originally posted by Joecroft
I mean, for example...couldn’t Angels be classified as other life existing out there...?
Originally posted by carsforkids
That' in my view is a good question. However with all the possibilities like
other dimensions it becomes impossible for me to even guess.
Originally posted by carsforkids
The only thing I would dare to say is if a supreme being created the universe? Then by every example of creation we know of a Creator is never captured by
his creation.
Originally posted by carsforkids
So let's say the cosmos are teaming with life. The universe had a beginning
so that would mean that the universe was not always there teaming with life.
That would in turn mean that all the life out there had to have had a start.
It must have happened somewhere first.
What you should be asking yourself (especially as you believe in a creator)…is Why would God create all that space…and have it devoid of any life except us here down on Earth…?…wouldn’t make much sense…right…?
Not sure I follow what you mean by this…What other examples of creation do we know of…? Especially in the context that we are discussing here…i.e. the current (and Only) known Universe…
Your equation is only interested in finding out the probability of life existing out there and your equation would work whether the Universe was created by God or Not…