The Drake Equation Fallacy

a reply to: neformore

The fact that someone called Jesus may have existed however, does not prove that god exists.

Yeah I think it does far more than your unfounded nonfactual speculations
formed from an obvious lack of knowledge gathered in a micro second of
time in universal chronology.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: neformore

The fact that someone called Jesus may have existed however, does not prove that god exists.

Yeah I think it does far more than your unfounded nonfactual speculations
formed from an obvious lack of knowledge gathered in a micro second of
time in universal chronology.

No, it doesn't.

"Unfounded nonfactual speculations" are the cornerstones of virtually all religions.

Again, that's why it's called faith. If it were "proven", faith would not be required.

It's perfectly fine for anyone to beleive in whatever helps them on thier journey through life and, ultimately, death, but let's not change the accepted definition of "factual".

Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

a reply to: Akragon

Is the roman guard ordered to guard Christs tomb not historical fact?
Scholars know it is and they also know that it is death for those guards
to leave their post. Scholars further more know they did leave their
post. There is history for this and even the roman guard pleading their
case as to why. You sound like you have great knowledge on the subject and
can correct me if I'm mistaken.

a reply to: carsforkids

Yes you are mistaken... that is not "historical fact"

this is a story written well after said events apparently took place... There are no original texts from the gospels, only copies of copies of copies... Thus nothing in said books can be taken as "historical fact"

We literally have nothing from the first century that is original....

We do know that Paul existed because his letters are autographed, even though they are also not originals... and we know in one of those letters he claimed to meet James, and peter... which links real history to Jesus...

that's about it... the rest is based on faith...

And yeah... I know far too much about the history of Christianity... I just don't participate in said discussions anymore

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

Well, I'm not sure about the humorous aspect of it, but it was really just an imaginative thought exercise. A very interesting one at that, given that 60 years later, it still invokes wonder.

The biggest problems with it are that the variabe values are speculation. Only the values though. The variables themselves are real, in so far as we understand the universe at this time.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

That's my main gripe. Despite my laying in with my far less nonsensical beliefs
than space aliens it's pure speculation and merits only fantasy baring no
truth or useful fruit in guiding humanity thru this difficult existence.

And that is damn sure the most obvious thing we lack! Guidance!

originally posted by: neformore
"Me" as in humanoid life-form - there's at least 7.7 billion as far as I am aware.
"Me" as in personally - if you apply quantum effects, potentially at least another one - however the subject is intelligent life, not individuals.

You were talking about nothing being singular in the universe. I can look out my singular window and see lots of them.

We haven't because we have barely scratched the surface in terms of what we can see (for example we can only see planets passing stars at the correct angles for us to see them traverse their parent star, or that are so massive they have gravitational effects whereas smaller earth size rocky planets are harder to detect that giant planets).

I think you are seriously underestimating the scale of the universe here, and overestimating the extent of our search. We've only lightly touched the surface, let alone begin to scratch it.

The size of the universe is not really a factor. If you find one box with a marble in it, but have no idea how it got there, if you had another billion (or trillion) boxes, why would you expect there to be another marble in another one of them? Just because of the number of the boxes?

At what point do you think we will have looked at enough of the universe to determine whether or not there is any other life out there? All of it? Because that's impossible. And you can't prove a negative, so the only way to answer the question is to find a positive example.

We'll probably keep looking for aliens until we either find them or we change so much that we lose interest and don't care anymore. Maybe we'll find some, maybe not. Maybe they're already here and everywhere but we're just too stupid to recognize them. But as of today, as far as we know, we're the only game in town.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: carsforkids

Yes you are mistaken... that is not "historical fact"

this is a story written well after said events apparently took place... There are no original texts from the gospels, only copies of copies of copies... Thus nothing in said books can be taken as "historical fact"

We literally have nothing from the first century that is original....

We do know that Paul existed because his letters are autographed, even though they are also not originals... and we know in one of those letters he claimed to meet James, and peter... which links real history to Jesus...

that's about it... the rest is based on faith...

And yeah... I know far too much about the history of Christianity... I just don't participate in said discussions anymore

I agree, but would point out that some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are likely 1st century BCE or CE.

I know they are not "Christian", as in NT, but proto Christian is not out of the question, as the Essenes (sp?) were contemporary with other offshoots of Judaism at the time, such as what eventually (after the First Council of Nicaea), became NT Christianity.

a reply to: Akragon

And yeah... I know far too much about the history of Christianity... I just don't participate in said discussions anymore

Well I can credit myself with spotting that much at least and
I will take your word for it. Doesn't diminish my point at all anyways.

Gotta back out for awhile peeps.

a reply to: Mach2

Actually... The council of Nicea has nothing to do with the compilation of the bible books... I wrote that thread a few years back just so I didn't have to explain it over and over again... it seems to come up a lot in religious discussions

Also I don't believe the dead sea scrolls actually mention Jesus specifically... Though its been a while since I've read any religious material

originally posted by: carsforkids
Yeah I think it does far more than your unfounded nonfactual speculations
formed from an obvious lack of knowledge gathered in a micro second of
time in universal chronology.

Again, coming from someone who believes in a supreme being but can't prove that it exists...really?

Also - haven't you been around for the same (I'll give you the benefit and say probably less) time as me? If so, why do you think your knowledge is more superior?

a reply to: Blue Shift

I like your marble analogy, but let's take it a step farther.

What if the number of boxes were infinate?

We already know at least one marble exists, and we know it got in that box somehow. Could you rule out the possibility that, however the damn thing got into the box, that it absolutely never happened again?

Now, there is absolutely a difference between a finite, and an infinite universe, but if you have ever undertaken the misery of calculus, you realize that as something approaches infinity, things quickly become possible.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Mach2

Actually... The council of Nicea has nothing to do with the compilation of the bible books... I wrote that thread a few years back just so I didn't have to explain it over and over again... it seems to come up a lot in religious discussions

Also I don't believe the dead sea scrolls actually mention Jesus specifically... Though its been a while since I've read any religious material

Agree in both points.

The DSS are OT, and apocryphal in nature, and while the counsil did not "compile" the bible, per se, IIRC, it did establish a standard doctrine to unify the different, often differing, Christian sects.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
You were talking about nothing being singular in the universe. I can look out my singular window and see lots of them.

Only because you are deciding to move the goalposts. 7.7billion individual people, but we are one singular species in universal terms.

The size of the universe is not really a factor. If you find one box with a marble in it, but have no idea how it got there, if you had another billion (or trillion) boxes, why would you expect there to be another marble in another one of them? Just because of the number of the boxes?

I couldn't discount it, because I would have no idea what was in each one, and would never have the time to check them all.

An while the marble argument seems clever, as it implies someone put the marble there in the first place it doesn't work. Marbles are artificial constructs, not self replicating cells.

Applying the logic you are using to a god/supreme being/creator means that there isn't one. You have no evidence of them/it.

There is, however, evidence of intelligent life.

originally posted by: Mach2
We already know at least one marble exists, and we know it got in that box somehow. Could you rule out the possibility that, however the damb tging got into the box, that it absolutely never happened again?

Oh, we could look at the next Earth-like planet we discover and find that it's teeming with intelligent life and civilization and all that stuff. Could. But at least you're getting the point. The number of boxes (planets) doesn't matter. It mostly boils down to having the ability, resources and motivation to keep looking. We humans have that for now. At least some of us, anyway. I bet the majority of people on the planet could not care less and if things take a turn for the worse, we might lose interest pretty fast. But in order to answer the question, we still need to find at least one other civilization (or at very least a clear biosignature for life, however basic). And then we can say for certain that life arose at least twice. But three times? Still hypothetical, meaning imaginary.

Now, there is absolutely a difference between a finite, and an infinite universe, but if you have ever undertaken the misery of calculus, you realize that as something approaches infinity, things quickly become possible.

Yeah, but again, it moves deeper into the realms of imagination and away from reality. I know that statistically you can flip a coin and if you give it enough flips it will come up heads 1 million times in a row. But when does that really happen? When you bet on the lottery, do you select 1-2-3-4-5-6? Statistically, it has the same chances of coming up as anything else. But have you ever heard of it actually happening?

When we're looking for aliens, maybe you're satisfied with statistical probabilities. But I tend to think that to prove aliens, you gotta find a real alien.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I really think you are missing the point, and conflating whether something exists, with whether humanity can ever be aware of its existence.

Say humans never find conclusive proof of other sentient life before we meet our ultimate demise. Let's face it, sooner, or later the earth will become an unlivable planet.

That really has no bearing on whether sentient life exists, existed, will exist elsewhere in the universe.

Mankinds knowlegde of it is totally irrelevant as to it's actual existing.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

Well, I'm not sure about the humorous aspect of it, but it was really just an imaginative thought exercise. A very interesting one at that, given that 60 years later, it still invokes wonder.

The biggest problems with it are that the variabe values are speculation. Only the values though. The variables themselves are real, in so far as we understand the universe at this time.

The topic was the humor.
Drake picked that one for his amusement

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

Well, I'm not sure about the humorous aspect of it, but it was really just an imaginative thought exercise. A very interesting one at that, given that 60 years later, it still invokes wonder.

The biggest problems with it are that the variabe values are speculation. Only the values though. The variables themselves are real, in so far as we understand the universe at this time.

The topic was the humor.
Drake picked that one for his amusement

Ahhh..... His humor.....

Well different strokes......

I know I often find things humorous that others may not see, and vice versa.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why do folks even put stock in Drake's equation ?
Again , for the one millionth time .
The so-called Drake's equation was merely a humorous example of how probability could be used in Astronomy and other related science.

Well, I'm not sure about the humorous aspect of it, but it was really just an imaginative thought exercise. A very interesting one at that, given that 60 years later, it still invokes wonder.

The biggest problems with it are that the variabe values are speculation. Only the values though. The variables themselves are real, in so far as we understand the universe at this time.

The topic was the humor.
Drake picked that one for his amusement

Ahhh..... His humor.....

Well different strokes......

I know I often find things humorous that others may not see, and vice versa.

Yeah , Drake was taking a poke at the "establishment"