Prayer and power

[Bri]

Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life.

Since the Drake equation is only useful for this galaxy, let's assume we're talking only about intelligent life in this galaxy (unless you feel that to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy is irrational).

According to the Wikipedia article, one estimate of the fraction of planets that can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life is .000000033. So, discounting the variable having to do with communication (fc), we get 0.00008316 intelligent civilations in the galaxy.

I agree, that the liklihood of communication is many many orders of magnitude lower than the liklihood of intelligent life ever existing anywhere else in our universe. But because of the sheer size of the universe, the odds go WAY up when you are talking about the mere existence of intelligence.

Although the estimate of 0.00008316 intelligent civilizations in the galaxy is better than 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can and are willing to communicate with us, the odds are still far in favor of no intelligent life by this estimate. So, my point still stands. Based on this estimate, it would still seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.

Again, although speculation, there is good reason to set it to 420 (that is Michael Shermer's estimate, by the way).

Setting it to even 100,000 years doesn't come close to tipping the odds in favor of one who believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. A civilization would have to exist for well over 2.5 million years to make the result 0.5 intelligent civilizations (ignoring the variable that limits the number that are willing and able to communicate with us).

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Again, although speculation, there is good reason to set it to 420 (that is Michael Shermer's estimate, by the way).

Setting it to even 100,000 years doesn't come close to tipping the odds in favor of one who believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. A civilization would have to exist for well over 2.5 million years to make the result 0.5 intelligent civilizations (ignoring the variable that limits the number that are willing and able to communicate with us).

-Bri

Okay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

 

[I less than three logic]

Bri, I don’t think you understand the Drake equation one bit. The equation is for calculating the number of intelligent civilizations we might expect existing far enough away, long enough ago, and for a long enough period of time for their signals to pass within detectable range of Earth during a time that we are able to detect them. That is much, much, much more narrow than the probability of other intelligent life simply existing elsewhere.

Edited for poor wording on my part.

Edited again to expend content.

Actually, I think I’ll expand this a bit for you to explain. I’ll even keep your conservative estimates that gave you the 0.000008 that you seem to think is the number planets with intelligent life the equation shows to exit.

R = 6/year – That means that 6 stars are born each year in this galaxy.

f_p=0.5 – Half of the stars form planets.

n_e=2 – Average of 2 habitable planets per stars that have planets.

f_l=0.33 – One in three habitable planets go on to form life.

f_i=0.0000001 – One in 10 million planets that form life end up with intelligent life.

f_c=0.01 – One in a hundred intelligent life forms become communicating life forms.

We can stop here; the last category isn’t relevant to this demonstration. Remember this based on 6 stars being formed per year, as stated above. So the equation:

N_c=R * f_p * n_e * f_l * f_i * f_c

would show the number of communicating life forms we could expect to develop each year. The number I got was 0.00000000198 per year. Assuming you don’t believe the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago, that means by this estimate we could expect about 8.91 (I’ll even round this down to 8) intelligent communicating life forms to have emerged, in this galaxy alone, during the 4 and a half billion years the Earth has been around.

 

[Bri]

Okay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Actually, I think I’ll expand this a bit for you to explain. I’ll even keep your conservative estimates that gave you the 0.000008 that you seem to think is the number planets with intelligent life the equation shows to exit.

Have you been reading the same thread I have? I already admitted that 0.0000008316 is the number of civilizations in our galaxy that can and are willing to communicate with us by one estimate. Using f_c=1.0 instead of f_c=0.01 (ignoring the estimate that only 1 out of 100 would actually communicate) would give you 0.00008316 intelligent communicating and non-communicating civilizations that exist in the galaxy at any given time.

would show the number of communicating life forms we could expect to develop each year. The number I got was 0.00000000198 per year. Assuming you don’t believe the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago, that means by this estimate we could expect about 8.91 (I’ll even round this down to 8) intelligent communicating life forms to have emerged during the 4 and a half billion years the Earth has been around.

We were talking about how many actually exist right now, as in the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. I thought that was clear. If 8.91 emerged during the past 4.5 billion years and they lived for an average of 420 years, it seems unlikely that there are any right now.

Of course, that completely misses the point that any numbers you place in the variables is pure speculation since we don't know what conditions actually give rise to intelligent life.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

You don't know what that “420 years” even means. We've been an intelligent life form for much longer than 420 years.

 

[I less than three logic]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri

No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409


Here’s a few links where you used the word universe yourself. As I’ve said many of us have been using it for quite some time.

 

[RandFan]

All of these are, of course, your opinion. When you said that "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't just your opinion, you were certainly overstating your case.

No more than stating that the sun will rise tomorrow is overstating my case.

If I argue that the sun will rise tomorrow based on our observations of the sun and you think that is overstating my case then you are consistent. You don't know what you are talking about but we can end the discussion.

Skeptic's Dictionary: Prayer

...and more important, if SBs could intervene in nature at will or if invisible energies could be directed by our intentions, then the order and lawfulness of the world of experience and of the world that science attempts to understand would be impossible.

This understanding is the same understanding that leads me to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Bri,

If you can read that quote and think that the physical laws that govern the sun are somehow different than the laws that govern everything else then you simply don't understand the laws of physics or you believe in faith or you simply don't understand the argument.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, I've explained several times now what I meant. The paragraph is entirely based on the assumption that the Christian belief that God exists is true.

Hypothetical arguments don't give you license to be illogical.

I was responding to Tricky, and was pointing out that most Christians hold their belief in prayer along with the belief that God exists, and therefore likely also hold the belief that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. IF God exists as Christians believe, then it would follow the God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. That's all I was saying.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID!!!It may very well have been what you meant but it is NOT WHAT YOU SAID!

If you're going to insist that I meant otherwise despite my explanation of what I did say, then I'll have to assume that there's a reason that you prefer to argue against this straw man rather than against my actual position.

Intellectual honesty would dictate that you acknowledge your error or in the least not argue as if you had not said what you clearly said regardless of your meaning. I don't know what you meant. I can't read your mind. I will take you at your word that you meant something else.

Now, if you did mean something else then have the decency to simply correct the record and then perhaps the courage to simply admit your mistake.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

There is NO mistake about what you said. Lacking knowledge of A is evidence of B.

That is illogical. It was illogical yesterday, it is illogical today and it will be illogical tomorrow.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, and it is. The fact that we don't know that God exists is proof that if God exists and is omnipotent, he might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Which is exactly what it says!

Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[RandFan]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri

Bri, that's just not honest. You know better. If you go back and look at the record you will find that you said outside of our solar system at least a dozen times. Outside of our Galaxy didn't get brought up until I noted Drake's equations.

 

[RandFan]

No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409


Here’s a few links where you used the word universe yourself. As I’ve said many of us have been using it for quite some time.

 

[Hyver]

Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.

Is it illogical? I think that there might be another way to go about saying this that isn't illogical.

1. God is omnipotant (that word has alot of baggage with it though, so lets just say that an omnipotant being can do all things that are not logically impossible)
2. I do not have any evidance that God exists.
3. God is not restrained in any way from providing me evidence of his existance. (this would be a part of omnipotence, but I added it here again on the offchance that there might be some logical impossibility about God providing us evidence)

It seems reasonable to make a disjunction
4. "God does not exist" or "God does not want to provide evidence of his existance"

If we assume God does exist, then our premesis are:

1a. God is omnipotant (that word has alot of baggage with it though, so lets just say that an omnipotant being can do all things that are not logically impossible)
2a. I do not have any evidance that God exists.
3a. God is not restrained in any way from providing me evidence of his existance. (this would be a part of omnipotence, but I added it here again on the offchance that there might be some logical impossibility about God providing us evidence)
4a. God exists

The next premise follows without needing any support. It's just simply the case that "A or Not A" is true, so we can assert 5

5. God does want me to know about him, or God does not want me to know about him.

If the first part of the disjunction is true "God wants me to know about him." then we have a situation where God exists, is omnipotant, has nothing stopping him from providing me the evidence to know about him, and wants me to know about him, but does not let me know about him. That seems to be a contradictory set of premises. If that is indeed a contradiction then "Not A" must be then true, that is God must not want me to know about his existance.

 

[RandFan]

Is it illogical? I think that there might be another way to go about saying this that isn't illogical.

Hey, I've been wrong before... not this time though.

5. God does want me to know about him, or God does not want me to know about him.

False disjunction. God may simply not care.

There are other problems with the argument but let's focus on just one at a time.

 

[Hyver]

If God doesn't care that would be equivalent to not wanting me to know. "Not A" doesn't have to be an active denial of information, it just has to not be that case that he actively wants me to know of his existance.

 

[RandFan]

If God doesn't care that would be equivalent to not wanting me to know. "Not A" doesn't have to be an active denial of information, it just has to not be that case that he actively wants me to know of his existance.

Sorry, no, that is not correct. An omnipotent God could simply not care. Not wanting someone to know is most certainly not the same as not caring if one knows. You will have to do better.

 

[Hyver]

Why? When I say "A or not A" I mean exactly that. The disjunction I introduced is that either A: God wants me to know that he exists, or Not A, that is "It is not the case that A" or fully unpacked "It is not that case that God wants me to know that he exists." Lets look at another example.

we will, in this example, say that A is "I want to go outside" so either it is true that A: "I want to go outside" or not A, "It is not the case that I want to go outside". It doesn't matter if I don't care about going outside, or if I want to go upstairs, or whatever. All that matters is that it's not the case that I want to go outside. It is logically impossible for "A or not A" to be false, and as I've defined omnipotence, God cannot do logically impossible things.

Something is either true, or it's not true.

 

[RandFan]

Something is either true, or it's not true.

Not everything. Not by a long stretch. Please see false dichotomy.

I'm at home in the back yard.
I have three visitors.

1.) The Probation officer knocks on my front door I don't want him to know I'm home so I sneak off and hide in the bushes hoping that if he comes back he won't see me.

2.) My neighbor knocks on the door. I don't care if he knows that I'm home. I don't care enough to go to the front and let him know I'm home and I don't care enough to hide in the bushes. If he sees me fine. If he doesn't fine.

3.) Heidi Klum knocks on my door. I jump to my feet and run around the house with visions of sugar plumbs dancing in my head.

It can't be said that I either want my visitors to know that I'm home or that I don't want them to know that I'm home.

Your argument is demonstrably fallacious.

 

[Tricky]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri

I believe that your first discussion was about "extrasolar life". Dang, where are those goalposts. They were here a minute ago.