The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: TzarChasm



That's the spirit. Maybe that was all we needed to do, ask for their help.

Hope you don't disappear in the night for a good probing.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

It's funny how this statement seems true from both the atheist and the theist perspective - depending on which one you believe.

1)The atheist thinks God is inherently impossible because He doesn't send postcards every day, and Aunt Wanda has been going through a lot lately and why would she be suffering if a God existed?

2)The theist, on the other hand, thinks godlessness is impossible due to the immense magnitude of order exhibited in all things.


I have come to terms with the reason for suffering, free will, and the way that God speaks, so I think option 2 is much more reasonable. Yet I had my atheist days so I know where you guys are coming from.

a reply to: cooperton

I just sit on the fence, since expressing this opinion i've found theists to be more sympathetic and understanding to my personal beliefs and in general atheists are much more forceful and obnoxious. Totally the opposite from what i originally expected.

a reply to: Grenade

I find for the most part, that your posts in this thread have been fairly well balanced and you have expressed your viewpoint clearly. Nothing you have said could be viewed as 'religious' for want of a better word.
I think you came into this thread with the mistaken idea that you could arbitrate (mediate) by injecting a little common sense into the ongoing back and forth. I think that got a few people's backs up.

This of course was a mistake on your part. The strife between atheists and creationists is not something that can be resolved when both sides are firmly entrenched and defensively posturing. Throw in a little projection where both sides accuse the other of the exact same thing and that's where this thread now sits. On top of that there are those that revel in the argy bargy.

My own view is that the creationists have no real evidence to back up their beliefs but rather than just admit that and be strong in their faith they feel they have to justify it to non believers. For some this means that they can accuse non believers of using science as a faith substitute which really is nonsense...but it produces a reaction which suits those of a religious persuasion and the debate is reduced to ad hominem.

It wasn't so long ago on this thread that you offered an apology to the other posters so perhaps in a way you are reaping the fruit of those earlier posts. Who can say?
I don't think sitting on the fence and trying to justify both perspectives has served you well here especially when it comes to subjects like the Earth is flat.

Having said all that, you seem like a decent person.

Regards midicon.

a reply to: midicon

Thanks for the kind words, my intention was to add some balance initially then I got caught up in the nature of the thread which is a complete joke.

I would say I never defended the flat Earth, to the contrary I tried to use science to debunk the idea. Then my comments were taken out of context and spent the next few days defending my position.

As you said balance doesn’t seem welcome.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

It's funny how this statement seems true from both the atheist and the theist perspective - depending on which one you believe.

1)The atheist thinks God is inherently impossible because He doesn't send postcards every day, and Aunt Wanda has been going through a lot lately and why would she be suffering if a God existed?

2)The theist, on the other hand, thinks godlessness is impossible due to the immense magnitude of order exhibited in all things.


I have come to terms with the reason for suffering, free will, and the way that God speaks, so I think option 2 is much more reasonable. Yet I had my atheist days so I know where you guys are coming from.

Thanks for not actually addressing anything I said. At least you included a quote from my post.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs

Intelligent systems are more likely to come from an intelligent being rather than random chance: Yes or no?


lol who am I kidding, your head isn't in sand, its in cement. of course intelligent systems are astronomically more likely to have come from an intelligent being rather than random chance.

Define "intelligent system" because that wasn't your original argument, you moved the goalposts. The universe is clearly not an intelligent system, you just assume it is because we don't know the origins of all the universal forces and constants. You make your argument based on the assumption that life couldn't form naturally, when you have no supporting evidence of that and no supporting evidence for intelligent design. And don't even think about equating human intelligence and design to a god being designing a universe. They are not even close to the same thing. You appeal to a being that we can't even detect in the slightest.

originally posted by: cooperton
1)The atheist thinks God is inherently impossible because He doesn't send postcards every day, and Aunt Wanda has been going through a lot lately and why would she be suffering if a God existed?

Hilariously dishonest projection. The atheist doesn't think god is IMPOSSIBLE, they simply are not convinced by the claim that he exists because it's never been demonstrated beyond assumption.

2)The theist, on the other hand, thinks godlessness is impossible due to the immense magnitude of order exhibited in all things.

Yes, the theist ASSUMES. Thanks for proving that.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

You want me to word for word copy Syntaxis Mathematica onto ATS?

It’s like 12or 13 books explaining his method, observation and results.

I'm not asking for math, I'm asking for empirical falsifiable experiments / tests. Quote me one of them and that's fine. I don't need it all, just one. Math =/= science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
If any aliens are reading this, please send help

Please not another meteor though, thanks

Then again, perhaps a meteor is the best way to help this messed up planet where 2/3 of the human population believe in fantasies, simply because they are passed down from parents.

originally posted by: Barcs
The universe is clearly not an intelligent system.

It behaves according to precise intelligible laws that have been perpetuating since the beginning.

You never answered the question though. Which is more probable: something intelligent coming from something intelligence or unintelligence?

Then again, perhaps a meteor is the best way to help this messed up planet where 2/3 of the human population believe in fantasies, simply because they are passed down from parents.

And you think the way you express yourself on these forums is leading towards a non-messed up planet? Stop being so crass and negligent to other perspectives.

a reply to: Barcs

So now you’re redefining science to fit your argument.

Ptolemy was a scientist, make whatever excuses up you like.

I’m sorry but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

We aren’t discussing YOUR interpretation of science.

Provide an example for Galileo or Copernicus that isn’t dependent entirely on Math and Observation.

Either Astronomy is a Science or not. I very much doubt you will ever admit you are wrong but I’m past trying to convince you of anything. Your arrogance holds no bounds.

If ever there was an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect you would be the personification of it.

a reply to: Barcs

The scientific method you hold so dearly is a loosely defined, disputed and non-standardised definition.

Ptolemy used systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning and tested his theory using predictions which on the whole were very accurate. He was by far the most "scientific" natural philosopher of his time.

The method varies greatly and has no standardised set of rules, so ironically it is you making straw man arguments which contradict your own position.

Please, show me the fixed and standard method which permeates through the entire scientific field so i can make judgement in the future.

The fallibility of scientific knowledge changes and adapts, as do the methods of control. Geo-centrism meets the criteria when you consider the state of science at that time, more than meets them.

Again, your argument appears to be that until the 17th century science did not exist. Did Copernicus invent science?

The role of science within society is affected by belief and the weight we give to the scientific method employed. Scientific practice deviates wildly depending on the subject and the scientist.

If you're actually interested in scientific method you should research the history of epistemology and the work of Aristotle who i have mentioned repeatedly.

Proof simply doesn't exist, there are only facts and evidence which then lead you to a conclusion.

a reply to: carsforkids

Originally posted by Joecroft
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…?

Originally posted by carsforkids
No wouldn't make sense at all from this lil blue ball spec of it all.

Exactly…we're on the same page…

Originally posted by carsforkids
And maybe what you assume about others and a supreme being doesn't
make much sense either.

What did I assume about others and A Supreme being, in ANY of my posts so far on this thread…???

I havent assumed anything about you or any Ats member on this thread…I may have “assumed” something about God, such as being the creator, but that’s pretty much a given.

Originally posted by carsforkids
Why would God create all that space out there?
Doesn't our space program give you the slightest hint?

But my original question was in relation to other life existing in the Universe, which in turn was directly connected to the Drake Equation!!! Which you were stating in your reply was a Fallacy!!!

I wasn’t asking the question because I didn’t have an answer to it…It was designed to get you to think.

Originally posted by carsforkids
You see I have pondered this and I like my speculation
far better. But that's all it is. My speculation beyond the
scriptures.

Far better than what…?

And What is your speculation…?

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 Joecroft
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…

And I’m not sure what you mean by the other part either… “a Creator is never captured by his creation.”…?

Originally posted by carsforkids
No no we are creative beings, we create art we build houses we create
children. All known examples of creation. Certainly nothing just pops or
oozes it's way into existence right?

Right…

But how could I possibly infer how you meant the word “creator”, and that you were referring to human’s making/creating stuff…especially considering the context…

Anyway…you didn’t answer the other part about what you meant by ““a Creator is never captured by his creation.”…?”… which was part the whole complete sentence that you wrote…Shown again here below for reference…

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.

…???

- JC

a reply to: carsforkids

Originally posted by carsforkids
I absolutely love you!

No Barcs this member gets it Pal. lol

You are the first one to say it perfectly.

You get a cookie!

That’s Great…I love cookies…I better eat it before NightStar shows up lol

Anyway…you do realize I just refuted your OP lol

Thanks again…

Mission Accomplished!

- JC

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

The scientific method you hold so dearly is a loosely defined, disputed and non-standardised definition.

Ptolemy used systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning and tested his theory using predictions which on the whole were very accurate. He was by far the most "scientific" natural philosopher of his time.

The method varies greatly and has no standardised set of rules, so ironically it is you making straw man arguments which contradict your own position.

Please, show me the fixed and standard method which permeates through the entire scientific field so i can make judgement in the future.

The fallibility of scientific knowledge changes and adapts, as do the methods of control. Geo-centrism meets the criteria when you consider the state of science at that time, more than meets them.

Again, your argument appears to be that until the 17th century science did not exist. Did Copernicus invent science?

The role of science within society is affected by belief and the weight we give to the scientific method employed. Scientific practice deviates wildly depending on the subject and the scientist.

If you're actually interested in scientific method you should research the history of epistemology and the work of Aristotle who i have mentioned repeatedly.

Proof simply doesn't exist, there are only facts and evidence which then lead you to a conclusion.

Okay but Ptolemy theory was still absolutely wrong, which implies his methods were not quite up to code.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

Your math clearly shows enough wiggle room for some biochemical magic to take place (I use that 'm' word facetiously) and spark the first life on Earth.

You're doing the Jim Carrey thing on purpose aren't you?

"So you're telling me there is a chance." (that it happened by chance in this context)

I think I was pretty clear in my explanation that there isn't and how one can tell. Even clearer than the lady in that scene. Didn't even need much math for it, my reasons were primarily based on biology, chemistry and physics, as explained in more detail by Tour (and me before). Some people just don't wanna hear it, not wanting to deal with inconvenient facts/certainties/realities/truths, and definitely not wanting to acknowledge these well-established facts. Sometimes, the behaviour is so exaggerated, that it almost seems like an act, a funny sketch:

Just make sure one is not too eager to point out others who believe in the possibility (and even plausibility; or the existence) of things without proper evidence, while one thinks they are in denial of all the factual evidence that in one's own view demonstrates it not to even be a possibility (let alone "plausible"; I can't think of many ideas that are more far-fetched and implausible then the one we're discussing here by the way. I'm hoping that mentioning that doesn't open the door to reading 'oh, so you're saying that it is possible' into that phrase*, conveniently ignoring all my explanations of how one can tell it's impossible, that there's no chance that this will happen or that it happened that way. *: i.e. doing the Jim Carrey-thingy). Cause it would make one look a bit hypocritical, doing the pointy finger thing I mentioned at the start of this paragraph when demonstrating the Baldrick behaviour mentioned in the paragraph before it (including believing something is possible "without proper evidence" and in denial of all the evidence against it, as if it isn't conclusive by means of agnostic attitudes for things that are as clear/unambiguous and certain that 1+1=2; some people just prefer to argue that it isn't because it's inconvenient to the rest of their arguments and their denial and evasion of the argument of induction regarding Creation by means of wishful thinking and imagination, pure fantasies. Myths one desperately wants to cling to as being at least possible, so one doesn't need to acknowledge the only logical explanation for the origin of life that actually fits the facts, the machinery and technology of life, and follows the method of induction regarding those subjects properly).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

You don't seem willing to eliminate the impossible from the discussion or consideration. I haven't even seen you willing to acknowledge the impossibility of something that is so clearly impossible as the origination, evolution, or development of life from things that are not alive by chance, perhaps so you can convince yourself (or others) that you don't have to eliminate it and can continue to pretend that it is possible, however unlikely/implausible (supposedly); that seems like a pretty good motive for bringing up Sherlock Holmes' supposedly clever phrase and fitting the context of how you used it. The writer of Sherlock Holmes wasn't being all that clever anyway. What if there are multiple competing explanations that are all not impossible, or deemed not to be impossible such as in the mind of an agnostic who wants to argue anything could be possible, even "a giant reptillian bird in charge of everything"? This methodology won't answer which one of these competing explanations is the actual "truth" of the matter, now would it? The reality that they are "competing explanations" (and why I said it like that) hints at the fact that they can't all be true, however plausible or implausible. Nice shift away from Sherlock Holmes' actual methodology though (incorporating agnostic philosophies and attitudes) if that was the motive or reason for bringing it up (which someone used to denying truths might feel like denying again, especially when those truths are about their own behaviour, way of thinking, reasoning and promotion of certain impossible ideas as at least possible, however implausible; so they can then crank it up from "possible" when nobody is paying attention, until ultimately people believe it to be "science", or at the very least, a reasonable "scientific hypothesis"; from which the phychological step to "plausible hypothesis" is easier made, if one wants to nudge people in that direction or leave them with that impression, as a good marketeer of impossible ideas/philosophies, that therefore are unverified, unproven, not because of a lack of scientific progress that is always promised to fill in the supposed minor gaps in knowledge as agnostic attitudes rule supreme in some circles to keep the door to this myth about the origin of life and other similar myths always open*).

I'm not afraid to admit that it's a well-established certainty/fact that the spontaneous origination/evolution/development of life from things that are not alive by chance = impossible. And that over the last 60 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth [or any other planet] from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

*:

a reply to: TzarChasm

By the way, the 'by necessity (because of some supposed yet undiscovered force* or set of forces of nature)'-argument, as proposed as an alternative to the 'by chance'-argument, is covered in my set of commentary about the agnostic principle on page 43. Where this video responds to it briefly (what he says regarding the universe also counts for the origin of life itself):

*: most of the times actually referred to as an undiscovered "law" by atheists, agnostics, philosophical naturalists and fans of evolutionary philosophies and myths. As does James Tour in his response to the question: "Could laws not yet discovered have helped in the origin of life?" in this video that I shared before at 16:32:

In response to your vague mention of "some biochemical magic" as a causal explanation to "spark the first life on Earth". Besides, one can keep going with responding to arguments from ignorance and fantasy. Others have already done an adequate job at it, as the ones in those videos. And I covered it on page 43, also when I was quoting the 'had to'-counterargument from the article "Purposeful Design or Mindless Process" and how I explained circular reasoning by means of assuming the initial point (nowadays often referred to as "begging the question", which is a confusing decription) being involved (first comment of mine there).

a reply to: TzarChasm

Absolutely!

Again, science is progressive and Ptolemy was merely part of its evolution.

Many scientists throughout history have seen their models superseded in light of technological advancement and refinement.

This is the crux of the argument. Barcs is ostracising Ptolemy because he was wrong as admitting he was a man of science suggests for nearly 1500 years science peddled lies and falsehoods.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

Your math clearly shows enough wiggle room for some biochemical magic to take place (I use that 'm' word facetiously) and spark the first life on Earth.

You're doing the Jim Carrey thing on purpose aren't you?

"So you're telling me there is a chance." (that it happened by chance in this context)

I think I was pretty clear in my explanation that there isn't and how one can tell. Even clearer than the lady in that scene. Didn't even need much math for it, my reasons were primarily based on biology, chemistry and physics, as explained in more detail by Tour (and me before). Some people just don't wanna hear it, not wanting to deal with inconvenient facts/certainties/realities/truths, and definitely not wanting to acknowledge these well-established facts. Sometimes, the behaviour is so exaggerated, that it almost seems like an act, a funny sketch:

Just make sure one is not too eager to point out others who believe in the possibility (and even plausibility; or the existence) of things without proper evidence, while one thinks they are in denial of all the factual evidence that in one's own view demonstrates it not to even be a possibility (let alone "plausible"; I can't think of many ideas that are more far-fetched and implausible then the one we're discussing here by the way. I'm hoping that mentioning that doesn't open the door to reading 'oh, so you're saying that it is possible' into that phrase*, conveniently ignoring all my explanations of how one can tell it's impossible, that there's no chance that this will happen or that it happened that way. *: i.e. doing the Jim Carrey-thingy). Cause it would make one look a bit hypocritical, doing the pointy finger thing I mentioned at the start of this paragraph when demonstrating the Baldrick behaviour mentioned in the paragraph before it (including believing something is possible "without proper evidence" and in denial of all the evidence against it, as if it isn't conclusive by means of agnostic attitudes for things that are as clear/unambiguous and certain that 1+1=2; some people just prefer to argue that it isn't because it's inconvenient to the rest of their arguments and their denial and evasion of the argument of induction regarding Creation by means of wishful thinking and imagination, pure fantasies. Myths one desperately wants to cling to as being at least possible, so one doesn't need to acknowledge the only logical explanation for the origin of life that actually fits the facts, the machinery and technology of life, and follows the method of induction regarding those subjects properly).

originally posted by: TzarChasm

When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however implausible, must be the truth.

You don't seem willing to eliminate the impossible from the discussion or consideration. I haven't even seen you willing to acknowledge the impossibility of something that is so clearly impossible as the origination, evolution, or development of life from things that are not alive by chance, perhaps so you can convince yourself (or others) that you don't have to eliminate it and can continue to pretend that it is possible, however unlikely/implausible (supposedly); that seems like a pretty good motive for bringing up Sherlock Holmes' supposedly clever phrase and fitting the context of how you used it. The writer of Sherlock Holmes wasn't being all that clever anyway. What if there are multiple competing explanations that are all not impossible, or deemed not to be impossible such as in the mind of an agnostic who wants to argue anything could be possible, even "a giant reptillian bird in charge of everything"? This methodology won't answer which one of these competing explanations is the actual "truth" of the matter, now would it? The reality that they are "competing explanations" (and why I said it like that) hints at the fact that they can't all be true, however plausible or implausible. Nice shift away from Sherlock Holmes' actual methodology though (incorporating agnostic philosophies and attitudes) if that was the motive or reason for bringing it up (which someone used to denying truths might feel like denying again, especially when those truths are about their own behaviour, way of thinking, reasoning and promotion of certain impossible ideas as at least possible, however implausible; so they can then crank it up from "possible" when nobody is paying attention, until ultimately people believe it to be "science", or at the very least, a reasonable "scientific hypothesis"; from which the phychological step to "plausible hypothesis" is easier made, if one wants to nudge people in that direction or leave them with that impression, as a good marketeer of impossible ideas/philosophies, that therefore are unverified, unproven, not because of a lack of scientific progress that is always promised to fill in the supposed minor gaps in knowledge as agnostic attitudes rule supreme in some circles to keep the door to this myth about the origin of life and other similar myths always open*).

I'm not afraid to admit that it's a well-established certainty/fact that the spontaneous origination/evolution/development of life from things that are not alive by chance = impossible. And that over the last 60 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth [or any other planet] from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

*:

TL;DR

You should really learn to condense your arguments if you want to communicate your ideas.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

Absolutely!

Again, science is progressive and Ptolemy was merely part of its evolution.

Many scientists throughout history have seen their models superseded in light of technological advancement and refinement.

This is the crux of the argument. Barcs is ostracising Ptolemy because he was wrong as admitting he was a man of science suggests for nearly 1500 years science peddled lies and falsehoods.

I prefer Galileo over Ptolemy. You know, the father of observational astronomy and modern physics.